Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know that there is anything that couldn't fail to exist Vlad.

Because if the necessary entity failed to exist everything else would also fail to exist in other words there would be nix, nada. there had to be something some reason that something came about.

[Stranger]

...I put that down to the necessity entity being the gateway to religion.

Except that the way you've described it (the characteristics you've just made up) would actually explicitly exclude it being any sort of god of religion.

If something can fail to exist then it's existence was contingent on something, it was conditional on something you haven't said what it is conditional on.

Which still doesn't tell us how it can be possible for anything to be such that it couldn't have failed to exist. This is one of the major problems with the whole logical omnishambles that you're pretending is an argument.

If there is sufficient reason for something to exist (which you insist must be the case for everything), then it must be contingent on that reason.

You've either got to have something that is its own sufficient reason, so contingent only on itself, which is conceptually identical to the cyclic contingency you've already rejected, or we're back to brute facts, an infinite regress, perhaps the ultimate multiverse in which everything that isn't impossible (self-contradictory) actually exists, or maybe an answer that is something we haven't even thought of.

What's silly and transparent special pleading is just to assert your god is somehow necessary because you want it to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I used the phrase natural evils to distinguish from those perpetrated by humans.

Their arguments against there being a god as a necessary being I find convincing. It was the final point made by NTtS that even if such a claim could be substantiated, there is an impossible leap to be made (by faith alone, I'd say) to suggest that such a being must be the Christian God.

Do you understand that a necessary being must not be dependent on or conditioned by anything else? It doesn't look like it and I would ask you where in atheism is there anything like that? I therefore find it most unconvincing but no doubt you have a reason to suppose that your being convinced trumps my lack of being convinced.

[Stranger]

Because if the necessary entity failed to exist everything else would also fail to exist...

Begging the question.   

What would be impossible about nothing existing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that the way you've described it (the characteristics you've just made up) would actually explicitly exclude it being any sort of god of religion.

Which still doesn't tell us how it can be possible for anything to be such that it couldn't have failed to exist. This is one of the major problems with the whole logical omnishambles that you're pretending is an argument.

If there is sufficient reason for something to exist (which you insist must be the case for everything), then it must be contingent on that reason.

You've either got to have something that is its own sufficient reason, so contingent only on itself, which is conceptually identical to the cyclic contingency you've already rejected, or we're back to brute facts, an infinite regress, perhaps the ultimate multiverse in which everything that isn't impossible (self-contradictory) actually exists, or maybe an answer that is something we haven't even thought of.

What's silly and transparent special pleading is just to assert your god is somehow necessary because you want it to be.

Again the reason is that there logically has to be a necessary entity which has sufficient reason, an infinite regress provides explanation for nothing and is unproductive and the properties of the necessary entity are better matched to theism than atheism.

Infinite regress provides a diversion from the question and no answers. It's appeal is therefore to the god dodging mind.

As for getting to christianity, there are other reasons for that. Infinite regress is a device for forbidding talk of God philosophically.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Begging the question.   

What would be impossible about nothing existing?

Presumably there would be a reason for something to have existed rather than nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because if the necessary entity failed to exist everything else would also fail to exist in other words there would be nix, nada. there had to be something some reason that something came about.

And ... so what. We certainly know that things exist, but we don't know whether things (all things) could not exist. Why couldn't there be nix, nada, while we know that isn't the case, you are arguing that it couldn't be the case and I take issue with that.

And you are actually making the necessity of an entity contingent on the presence of other entities, which surely makes it contingent.

Surely if something is a necessary entity (under your definition) it surely must be required to exist regardless of whether anything else exists.

[Dicky Underpants]

Do you understand that a necessary being must not be dependent on or conditioned by anything else? It doesn't look like it and I would ask you where in atheism is there anything like that? I therefore find it most unconvincing but no doubt you have a reason to suppose that your being convinced trumps my lack of being convinced.

Do really think I haven't worked my way through Aquinas' 'proofs' ( or Anselm's even more vacuous 'proofs') before?
I found them unconvincing on the first reading, and nothing any apologist has come up with subsequently has changed my mind. My interest in such matters is not overwhelming, but I'll continue to follow this for a little while. I might just have a revelation...

[Stranger]

Again the reason is that there logically has to be a necessary entity which has sufficient reason...

Why can't you give us the logic? How do you square the circle of something needing a sufficient reason without be contingent on that reason?

...an infinite regress provides explanation for nothing and is unproductive and the properties of the necessary entity are better matched to theism than atheism.

Foot-stamping isn't going to make things the way you want them. There are no properties of a necessary entity that you haven't just made up. You haven't even shown how to avoid the self-contradiction of having sufficient reason without being contingent.

Atheism has bugger all to do with it because you haven't connected this impossible, nonsensical 'necessary entity' for which you've provided no sound reasoning to any sort of god, even if it did exist.

[Stranger]

Begging the question.   

What would be impossible about nothing existing?

Presumably there would be a reason for something to have existed rather than nothing.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. How do you know that nothing existing would be impossible, i.e. that something had to exist, rather than just does exist?

If you insist on a sufficient reason, then does that reason exist? If it does, how can it be the reason for everything existing (including itself)? If it doesn't exist, how can it be a reason for anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably there would be a reason for something to have existed rather than nothing.


That's not an answer to the question I asked.

It is. The sufficient reason for something existing must exist. You are treating nothing as a something.

If you insist on a sufficient reason, then does that reason exist? If it does, how can it be the reason for everything existing (including itself)? If it doesn't exist, how can it be a reason for anything?

You are saying there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason. Think about that for a moment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do really think I haven't worked my way through Aquinas' 'proofs' ( or Anselm's even more vacuous 'proofs') before?
I found them unconvincing on the first reading, and nothing any apologist has come up with subsequently has changed my mind. My interest in such matters is not overwhelming, but I'll continue to follow this for a little while. I might just have a revelation...

Anselm?......He's an ontological argument guy isn't he so unless he had a cosmological 'proof' I don't know why you have pulled him into this argument.
I understand Bertrand was erstwhile impressed with the ontological argument and said it feels wrong to the modern mind but that people didn't actually understand why and where it was wrong. I am hazarding that you feel the argument from contingency is wrong but don't understand why you feel that way. The answer of course is the modern obsession with empirical evidence, science and agnosticism.

The argument of course is more elegant than any of the half baked nonsense put forward to rebut it. Namely Contingency but no necessity, infinite regress, insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason while allowing that there could be something that just is and needs no sufficient reason for giving, relying at one moment on the possibility of nothing while else where arguing that nothing may be an impossibility.

If the necessary entity is not God then what is it? This is the question that gets atheists here scuttling for the excuse that they haven't proposed anything....Heck we haven't even agreed on what the default position is. Could it be there doesn't have to be a necessary being? There isn't a necessary entity? There is a necessary entity but it's not God? who knows.

Brute fact or I don't want to investigate any further? I think Russell sums atheism up well when he say's ''the universe is and there's an end to it.''

And that is why I find arguments against contingency/necessity unconvincing.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the necessary entity is not God then what is it?

How many times do I have to say this - you need first to demonstrate that there is a necessary entity before you can speculate what it is. And you haven't come close to doing that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Could it be there doesn't have to be a necessary being?

Yup, a perfectly reasonable proposition

There isn't a necessary entity?

Again a plausible possibility.

There is a necessary entity but it's not God? who knows.

Yup, again a reasonable proposition to add to the other reasonable propositions.

And, of course, add to that the possibility that there is a necessary entity that is god, but not the christian god, and further that there is a necessary entity that is the christian god.

All are possibilities, but we are miles away from from having sufficient evidence to credibly conclude whether or not there is a necessary entity and if there is one what that necessary entity is.

A sensible person recognises our lack of knowledge and accepts our uncertainty. A fool makes bold and unsubstantiated claims with apparent certainty when there is none. I think we know who on this MB are the former and who is the latter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yup, a perfectly reasonable proposition
Again a plausible possibility.
Yup, again a reasonable proposition to add to the other reasonable propositions.

And, of course, add to that the possibility that there is a necessary entity that is god, but not the christian god, and further that there is a necessary entity that is the christian god.

All are possibilities, but we are miles away from from having sufficient evidence to credibly conclude whether or not there is a necessary entity and if there is one what that necessary entity is.

A sensible person recognises our lack of knowledge and accepts our uncertainty. A fool makes bold and unsubstantiated claims with apparent certainty when there is none. I think we know who on this MB are the former and who is the latter.

I think I detect a shifting of the goalposts here from the necessary entity necessary for the contingency in the universe to the existence of an entity which cannot possibly not exist, while keeping the option of God not being the necessary being. The idea of contingency without the necessity is absurd given the definition of contingency. In other words if you have established contingency you have established a necessary entity for it. What you are making is a challenge to the principle of sufficient reason using the principle of sufficient reason. worse is there must be a sufficient reason for there being something rather than nothing. So are you sure you wish to continue with your attempt to disprove the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason. The reason for why there is something rather than nothing is the bottom most reason in the heirarchy.

There is nothing at all to justify Russell's reason behind Atheism that the universe just is and that's the end of it. That smacks of not getting your head round it and Goddodging.

Your problem here is not understanding the definition of contingency and your mash up/flip flop between philosophy and empiricism whenever the going gets tough, a typical trick of the new atheist i'm afraid.

[Stranger]

It is. The sufficient reason for something existing must exist. You are treating nothing as a something.

You still haven't answered the question I asked. I started by trying to ask what the sufficient reason for this supposed 'necessary entity' would be. You said that if it didn't exist, nothing would exist, so I asked why you thought that was impossible. Why is it something had to exist rather than just did exist? Goodness knows why you think this is any sort of answer.

With the above statement you've effectively said that the principle of sufficient reason (in the sense of applying to the physical world) leads directly to an infinite regress. So it's just as silly as 'first cause' arguments starting with the premiss that everything must have a cause.

So, yet again: what would be the sufficient reason for your proposed necessary entity?

You are saying there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason. Think about that for a moment.

Try just thinking before typing an answer, for once. I didn't say anything of the sort, I pointed out that if a sufficient reason for existence itself, exists, then it would be part of existence, and asked how that would work. A question you've ignored in favour of repeating this stupid mantra you seem to think is so profound, but is actually just an equivocation fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still haven't answered the question I asked. I started by trying to ask what the sufficient reason for this supposed 'necessary entity' would be. You said that if it didn't exist, nothing would exist, so I asked why you thought that was impossible. Why is it something had to exist rather than just did exist? Goodness knows why you think this is any sort of answer.

With the above statement you've effectively said that the principle of sufficient reason (in the sense of applying to the physical world) leads directly to an infinite regress. So it's just as silly as 'first cause' arguments starting with the premiss that everything must have a cause.

So, yet again: what would be the sufficient reason for your proposed necessary entity?

Try just thinking before typing an answer, for once. I didn't say anything of the sort, I pointed out that if a sufficient reason for existence itself, exists, then it would be part of existence, and asked how that would work. A question you've ignored in favour of repeating this stupid mantra you seem to think is so profound, but is actually just an equivocation fallacy.

Infinite regress does not provide sufficient reason because the question, contingent on what is never answered.

The argument from contingency is a bottom up argument it starts with observable things the neccesary entity is the logical conclusion
the final question in the logical progression of the contingency argument is why something rather than nothing. The necessary entity explaining that is the reason there is something rather than nothing. That is the final sufficient reason.

[Stranger]

Infinite regress does not provide sufficient reason because the question, contingent on what is never answered.

Neither does going down to some arbitrary bottom of hierarchy and then just stopping.

The argument from contingency is a bottom up argument it starts with observable things the neccesary entity is the logical conclusion
the final question in the logical progression of the contingency argument is why something rather than nothing. The necessary entity explaining that is the reason there is something rather than nothing. That is the final sufficient reason.

That's actually a top down 'argument'. No, a necessary entity is not a logical conclusion from contingency, and all you've done is religiously apply the principle of sufficient reason until you don't. And, no, nothing that exists can possibly explain why something exists rather than nothing because its own existence remains unexplained.

It's just laughable. It's every bit as silly as starting with the premiss that everything must have a cause to argue that there is something with no cause. You're just saying we have to give sufficient reason for everything until we get to something you're just going to label 'necessary', that magically doesn't need one. This is exactly the same as saying something (like the universe) 'just is', except you don't like to apply it to the universe, but as long as it's your god, it's fine.

[jeremyp]

Sure, but the answer to 'on what' is likely to simply be something that is in itself contingent on another entity.

Now your whole argument is based on linearity - in other words that eventually you get to something which is necessary for all the things further down in the chain, but is not contingent on anything else. The end of the chain so to speak. But the chain may be circular, not linear so that:

Entity A is contingent on entity B
Entity B is contingent on entity C
Entity C is contingent on entity D
Entity D is contingent on entity A

In this very simple example there is no absolute 'necessary entity' (i.e. one that is not contingent), but there are four entities that are both necessary and also contingent.

But there is also an entity which is the system of A, B, C and D on which all four of those entities are contingent. On the other hand, you could argue that the system arises because of the existence of the entities in it and it is therefore contingent on them.

Either way, this is a side show. The system of A, B, C and D is clearly not a god, much less the Christian god (whether it is deemed contingent or necessary).

[jeremyp]

It's God, Gordon, immortal, invisible and sovereign(not contingent).

God is in the Universe? I thought you said everything in the Universe is contingent.

[Spud]

Which we were doing before the 'sacrifice', so what's changed? What does the 'sacrifice' achieve? And why was it necessary for a loving all-powerful god to demand, commit and accept a sacrifice in order to achieve it?

And what of all the people who've already died? Or is this a 'spiritual' garden, where whatever it is that gets admitted isn't actually me?

Assuming that I accept that there was no 'cheating', that he chose to suffer, chose to really die (even if only temporarily)... I still don't see what it was supposed to achieve or why it was necessary. If it was an act of atonement to apologise TO humanity I could understand the gesture - it would still be gratuitous and unnecessary, but it would make sense. But to punish himself, in order to feel able to forgive us for something someone else did... it just sounds deluded.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that any inanimate object can be 'good' or 'evil' - it simply is, any good or evil comes from how we choose to interact with it. Which is part, I suppose, of the mystique of things like the sun and moon, their inaccessibility means that they're sort of immune to our exhortations (to borrow a phrase), their indifference should be humbling if we took long enough to think about it.

I'm up to four now, and it's a fear at times. That fear, though, comes about because as parents we're imperfect - we can't absolutely predict how our encouragements and penalties are going to be taken, we can't know the exact state of mind of our children, what else has impacted them on any given day, and how all those little bits will add up. God is depicted as though he can... could a perfectly loving, all-knowing being be anything less than the ideal parental figure?

I know it's not intended as an 'excuse', but free-will always feel like it's being deployed as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card. Notwithstanding the biological and physical evidence that suggests free-will is an illusion, and that our future is already defined, as soon as free-will is put on the table philosophically god is no longer all-knowing. If the future can be altered, god is no longer all-powerful - even if that loss is a decision on his part. And if god is not all-knowing and all-powerful, is it still god?

O.

The sacrifice makes it possible for a believer to have eternal life, which was lost at the Fall.
Why was this necessary? Because our good deeds alone can't achieve eternal life. Only someone who hasn't sinned (Jesus) and therefore to whom the penalty of death doesn't apply, would deserve eternal life. So the question is, how does Jesus' death pay for our sins and enable a believing sinner to have eternal life, or, why does God accept Jesus' death to pay for our sins when it should be us that pay for them?

This is not easy to answer, but as I've been thinking about it a few things have come to mind: firstly, that God's purpose when he acts is that people would glorify his name.
I don't know if you've read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? At one point, Edmund becomes a traitor, and the white witch reminds Aslan that because of this, Edmund has to die on the Stone Table. But Aslan offers himself in Edmund's place and is killed instead. Then Susan and Lucy find him alive, and in the ensuing battle he crushes the witch to death.
So I'm just thinking about whether CS Lewis answers the question here: the witch is Aslan's enemy, so she gets to kill him which maybe she thinks is better for her than killing Edmund (??). But I'm not sure how Aslan's death in Edmund's place satisfies the Emperor-beyond-the-sea. More to think about anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

But there is also an entity which is the system of A, B, C and D on which all four of those entities are contingent.

Indeed

On the other hand, you could argue that the system arises because of the existence of the entities in it and it is therefore contingent on them.

Absolutely - and when you consider the necessary aspect of a necessary entity you may end up with that being contingent on its contingent entities.

So as an example - you may say that my existence is contingent on the existence of my parents and that they are therefore necessary entities (i.e. couldn't fail to exist if I exist). But hold on the necessity of my parents is dependent (i.e. contingent) on my existence. If I do not exist then their existence is no longer necessary so they could have failed to exist. So their existence as necessary entities is contingent on my existence and thus they are, in reality, contingent entities to my necessary entity, as well as the reverse.

But this is all 'in practice' necessity, rather than fundamental necessity - surely a true necessary entity must have to exist regardless of whether any contingent entities exist or do not exist. And in this context my parents could easily not exist, the corollary being that I would also not exist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

First of all I am aware that things which cannot be falsified are generally termed beliefs. I would not personally have put forward your knowledge , belief dichotomy, I think that is too simple and I'd put experience in there too as many members will have noticed.

Sure but people like to categorise information. Otherwise discussions become difficult to understand if we don't use common terms. I'm not really fussed what we call it so long as we both agree that there are some pieces of information that are repeatedly testable at any given time with the necessary equipment, and the results are consistently demonstrable to others and are in the vast majority of cases experienced by those others in the same way allowing common terms of reference and rules to be derived (until new information is discovered that alters our understanding and rules etc). We could call this knowledge but it doesn't really matter what we call it so long as we can distinguish it from other types of information. 

For example, we distinguish it from information that is based on subjective experience and is not repeatedly testable as no one has invented the equipment to test it and therefore is not demonstrable to others. Experience of this information inside each individual's mind is interpreted in ways that are very different for each individual. Examples of this type of information is anything related to concepts such as the supernatural, the untestable, the emotional, the aesthetic, morality etc

I think the above 2 types of information are not the same. I think it's fine to point that out and to accept that while we have no choice but to accept the laws of gravity, no one is under any obligation to agree that someone else's subjective experience points to any universal truth or universal moral rules. It seems to be a different "truth" for each individual based on their own unique set of circumstances, nature, nurture and perspective.   

How people prioritise what they categorise is up to them and the culture and society they live in. Not everyone wants to always prioritise knowledge over belief. When we make day to day decisions we often rely on moral beliefs to guide us more than the latest peer -reviewed studies of data on an issue.  And it seems reasonable for members of society to try to change the culture and morals of their society. It may be that in the process they will be ostracised by many of their friends and family but they may be accepted by another community and family of like-minded people. So long as it does not lead to rioting and anarchy I think people's beliefs are a matter of taste so can only be changed by information and persuasion that appeals to their tastes and inclinations.     

The ultimate thing in the universe is where I started. I found myself unusually moved and energised by Carl Sagans TV epic Cosmos. Shortly afterwards I was introduced to CS Lewis and his writings about the numinous helped me make sense of what had been stirred in me by Sagan. While reading Lewis
and getting to the bottom of the numinous ultimate thing I became aware of what was beyond Lewises words and beyond the numinous.

I read more of Lewis on christianity, the bible became clearer to me, the moral argument became comprehensible to me in the light of my experience but eventually I encountered Jesus call in The new testament rev 3.20 and at the same point I became aware of God's holiness at which point after a short struggle I gave in and offered him all I was. You see, we have experiences that are beyond words and yet we are forced to use the appropriate word framework to describe them and for me the agnostic british wordframe petered out as an explanatory tool quite early on in the journey

I agree it is not possible to put experiences into words that adequately convey that experience.
 

Is the universe the necessary being....well you're not and I'm not and Alpha centuri isn't we are part of the universe. So how can 'the universe' be the necessary entity? Secondly, from the best definition of contingency i've seen....the Merriam webster dictionary.....a contingent thing is something which is dependent on and conditioned by. This gives us an idea of what necessity and the necessary entity must be like and as Aquinus has pointed out that fits what we call God better. He is not dependent (sovereign)and he isn't conditioned by.

So since I see ''getting religion'' as movements from one thing to another, from the outside toward the centre.....what moved you from the poetry of the quran to Allah?

I actually was reading a verse of the Quran translation to point out to my Muslim boyfriend (now husband) what a load of crock it was along with every other religious text. He seemed to be a switched on, intelligent, thoughtful person, ran a business, had integrity, so I could not understand how he could possibly think that any of the stuff written in these texts were particularly profound or useful and thought I would do him a favour and enlighten him and draw him away from this superstitious nonsense. As you say, words are not adequate to convey why I changed my mind, but I read a verse about modesty and attention-seeking and I guess it deflated my cocky self-assurance as I realised the reason I wanted to enlighten him was as a way of drawing attention to myself, to make myself look good - intelligent, logical, reasoned, articulate, to put on display what I thought were some winning qualities to get his attention. I guess the words I read in the Quran alerted me to my natural attention-seeking inclinations and so I decided to read some more. And eventually I decided to be someone different with a different outlook and I find the Quran/Islam helps me with that.

Also, lots of people seem to rely on me many times to get things done. I rely on myself to get things done. When I feel a little like I am drowning or spinning (as everyone does sometimes) it helps me to pray (using Islamic rituals). I find I can admit in prayer that I feel a little overwhelmed and ask for help and no one IRL who relies on me will know and feel unnerved that I might not always have it together. Prayer is a release and it has a positive influence on my approach to life after prayer. It's better than a real life conversation, which the listener might misinterpret or make assumptions about my thoughts and feelings that are inaccurate because as you say words and language are not always adequate to convey an idea. I find it a better release than alcohol to take the edge off, I saved a ton of money in the process, I don't get hangovers, I am bright-eyed and bushy tailed. So being a Muslim is enjoyable for me and this enjoyment isn't diminished just because some other people happen to think I am mad/foolish/ delusional/ irrational because I am relying on belief rather than knowledge. I don't feel I need other people to celebrate, validate or agree with my view for me to enjoy being me.

[jeremyp]

The sacrifice makes it possible for a believer to have eternal life, which was lost at the Fall.
Why was this necessary? Because our good deeds alone can't achieve eternal life. Only someone who hasn't sinned (Jesus) and therefore to whom the penalty of death doesn't apply, would deserve eternal life. So the question is, how does Jesus' death pay for our sins and enable a believing sinner to have eternal life, or, why does God accept Jesus' death to pay for our sins when it should be us that pay for them?

This is not easy to answer, but as I've been thinking about it a few things have come to mind: firstly, that God's purpose when he acts is that people would glorify his name.
I don't know if you've read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? At one point, Edmund becomes a traitor, and the white witch reminds Aslan that because of this, Edmund has to die on the Stone Table. But Aslan offers himself in Edmund's place and is killed instead. Then Susan and Lucy find him alive, and in the ensuing battle he crushes the witch to death.
So I'm just thinking about whether CS Lewis answers the question here: the witch is Aslan's enemy, so she gets to kill him which maybe she thinks is better for her than killing Edmund (??). But I'm not sure how Aslan's death in Edmund's place satisfies the Emperor-beyond-the-sea. More to think about anyway.

Yes but Aslan tricked the White Witch into substituting himself for Edmund knowing that he would be resurrected by the "deeper magic from before the dawn of time". So, both he and the White Witch are beholden to a higher power.

In Christianity, God plays the role of both the White Witch and Aslan and it is God that makes the rules that are the analogue of the deep magic. The story in The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe makes sense in its own context, but the Christian story does not. Essentially, God tricks himself with a loophole in his own rules.

[Spud]

Yes but Aslan tricked the White Witch into substituting himself for Edmund knowing that he would be resurrected by the "deeper magic from before the dawn of time". So, both he and the White Witch are beholden to a higher power.

In Christianity, God plays the role of both the White Witch and Aslan and it is God that makes the rules that are the analogue of the deep magic. The story in The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe makes sense in its own context, but the Christian story does not. Essentially, God tricks himself with a loophole in his own rules.

Not sure if you're aware of the emperor, who represents God the Father? It seems Lewis didn't fully understand the way the death of Jesus worked, and in Lion WW Aslan says that there is a deeper magic which makes death work backwards, if someone who has not been treacherous dies in the place of someone who has. Still the question is why?

I think the witch represents the devil and Aslan represents God the Son. Because Lewis doesn't completely explain the atonement in Christianity, maybe we can't rely on Lion WW to explain it perfectly.