Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: The Atheist Experience TV Show

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default The Atheist Experience TV Show

    Martin Wagner - The Atheist Experience TV Show
    Re: http://www.atheist-experience.com/

    I said, "The reason I know atheism is wrong is because obviously something can't come from nothing (that which does not exist), nor can the universe always have existed, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, there would have been an eternity to do so, so it would have happened already. Yet here we are. Therefore, since no other naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, we are left inextricably with the necessity of the uncreated Creator."



    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    If you're so quick to reject an eternally existing universe, why are you okay with an eternally existing creator?
    I didn't think I was being quick, but gave you the clear and solid reason that if there has been this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature (material and time), then we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. But the uncreated Creator exists outside of time (since He is uncreated) and brings time into existence, so this problem for a past eternity of nature wouldn't apply to the uncreated Creator.

    Furthermore, the universe can't personally relate to me because it is just a bunch of atoms bouncing around. But the uncreated Creator personally reveals Himself to me through the Son of God Christ Jesus, and that's why I am ok with it.

    Creation is a causal act, so the problem of infinite regress is not solved by proposing such a being. If God had an eternity in which to create the universe, then as you say, he'd have done it long before. There's no reason he'd have waited to do it 14 billion (or 6000, depending on what kind of creationist you are) years ago.
    Indeed, your statement would be valid if God existed in nature (universe(s)), but He doesn't. Remember He exists outside of time and space of nature, so it is illogical to ask why He didn't create the universe a trillion years ago or 13.7 billion years ago. He is uncreated. We must reserve some knowledge for God that we could never know because He would be outside of time and space, infinitely greater than us, and we could never be God. This is the beginning of true humility.

    So the very criticism you seek to undermine a naturalistic origin of the universe with ends up flattening your God for exactly the same reason. If you are like any of the other apologists who have tried offering us this one before, I suspect you will go on to invoke a special pleading fallacy to get God off the hook.

    Anyway, I personally don't hold that something came from nothing. Thanks for writing.

    Martin
    So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead, contrary to the evidence supplied, for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator.

    I am glad you don't hold something in nature or all of nature itself comes from nothing, so that means you can bypass Step 2 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God,
    http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

    Great logicians have said which I most firmly agree once you exhaust all known possibilities, it must be that what you previously considered impossible must be true -- the uncreated Creator. This is further substantiated by the fact you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and you can't show something lesser produces the greater such as merely bouncing atoms alone forming into sentient life. Since you can't scientifically reproduce it, you have failed in your quest. Holding out that you may one day so would be a pipe dream, even to the arrogant point of claiming there was last thing you didn't know could still prove the universe always existed. This is equivalent to saying you have to be God to know if God exists, but obviously you are not God. And it is contrary to the evidence already established if there was a eternity of the past of nature, we would have already happened by now having had an eternity to do so.

    Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Don Baker
    Re: http://www.atheist-community.org/

    The same message above to Martin Wagner was also sent to Don Baker, but Don Baker uses the opposite approach of claiming something in nature comes from nothing rather than an infinite regress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Baker
    Hello,

    What if I claim I have a million dollars in my pocket? I dare you to prove that I don't. You don't know where I live and you don't have the ability to search my pocket. Does that make me rich? By your "logic", it does. You're saying, "if you can't disprove X, then X must be true". This is called an argument from ignorance and it's a well known logical fallacy. It's a bad argument, but that's par for the course with apologetics.

    The time to believe in a god in when there is some real evidence for a god. Got any?

    You might also do a little research on quantum mechanics, zero point energy, and the big bang. The beginning of the universe is not, as you say, creating something out of nothing. It's more like nothing changing form (and keeping the conservation of energy). But all this doesn't matter because the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim that there is a god. If you don't have any real evidence, I'll continue not believing, which is the CORRECT response to bullshit claims.

    --Don
    X = million dollars in your pocket.

    If I can't disprove X then X must be true? That's not the approach I take at all.

    Rather, not only can you not disprove God exists, but you can't overturn the evidence for why He exists and why atheism is false. He exists because the universe can't always have existed. The universe can't always have existed because we would have happened already having had an opportunity to do so.

    I am standing on this other hill with an argument you have not addressed, while you stand on another hill arguing against an approach that someone else might take, but I do not. You did not address what I said to you.

    That which is "nothing" doesn't exist. It is nothing. Nothing always is derived from nothing. Therefore, it can't change form into something. So the big bang and anything on the quantum level can't come from nothing, that which does not exist. That's like producing a rabbit out of a hat, a puff the magic dragon theory. Cute but fanciful.

    Step 2 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God fully proves why something can't come from nothing,
    http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

    Therefore, the universe was created out of something, adhering to the law of cause and effect. That cause would then be our only option left, the uncreated Creator who exists outside of time and space, no matter how unsettling this may be to your flesh and thus, accountability with consequences. God says we are accordingly "without excuse" (Rom. 1.20) if we deny His existence.

    The burden of the proof lies on us both; I hold no such doublestandard and not treat others as I would like to be treated by saying the burden is only on them for what they propose. I have given you the reason which you haven't overturned the evidence for God and why atheism is false, but you haven't found ground for the burden that is on you that you posit no God or something coming from nothing. You would first have to show why God does not exist and then erect in its place how something can come from nothing as well as overturn the evidence why that cannot be possible. Unless and until you do so, you are deceiving yourself, others and actually leading people to Christ (saving souls from sin, self, Satan and Hell) because people can see you got no answer.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    It really is that simple so "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34). Great scientists have no greater opportunity of being saved than the dullest person out there. But they do have greater accountability with vaster knowledge.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Hello Troy,

    As I anticipated, you've rushed right into a textbook special pleading fallacy, claiming that God "exists outside of time and nature," but failing to give any evidence that there is such a realm for a God to inhabit. The short version of your response is, "God doesn't have to obey any rules, because he's a magic being living in a magic realm." If a realm "outside of time and nature" actually exists, where is it exactly? What properties does it possess, if not temporal or natural ones? How does God engage in a causal act (creation) within such a realm, and how does he manage to place his creation (the universe) outside of this realm?
    You're avoiding the point, not adhereing to the rules of logic. Since there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature (for the reasons given) and something in nature can't come from nothing (for the reasons given), you're left with no other option than the uncreated Creator who necessarily then must exist outside time and space, so it is illogical to ask "...where is it exactly?" You even said it would be "outside of time and nature". That's where in a non-spacial sense only. You can't ask this question spatially because God exists outside of space. You are asking some other questions like how does God do this? I don't know. I am not God. All I know is it would be necessary since no other option exists, and it is unreasonable to demand how God does things always since only God would know all things.

    The remainder of your argument consists solely of unsupported assertions, and there are a number of ironic moments when you undermine yourself. You say that God has revealed himself to you through Jesus. But then you go on to say that we must "reserve some knowledge for God that we could never know because He would be outside of time and space, infinitely greater than us, and we could never be God. This is the beginning of true humility." I'm always delighted to be lectured on "humility" by someone who thinks he's BFF with the creator of the universe.
    Sorry I don't know what your acronym means that only you know (don't be selfish), but if you think what I said are unsupported assertions, you would have to show it, rather than just say it. Since the uncreated Creator is proven (I have received no argument against the proof) then it is reasonable to ask who He is or where does He reveal Himself to us? Since none can compare to Christ by the resurrection proof, and you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, though you may not concede openly Jesus is God, you are as well admitting that He is.

    I hear Christians tell me all the time that God is just so super-awesome that there are things about him we can't know. I can't help noticing they always do this immediately after they have claimed a great deal of specific, "revealed" knowledge about God, and all I have done is press them for some details. It seems to me what's really going on here is they're leaving themselves a rhetorical back door to slip out of when the going gets rough, because the one thing they left out of their apologetics toolkit is anything resembling evidence. But hey, maybe I'm just not humble enough.
    If you don't think it is evidence, then counter it. To repeat the evidence is as follows. Since nature can't always have existed and can't start up from nothing then there must exist the uncreated Creator even though we don't know how He does all things, nor is it reasonable to think we could for He would be infinitely greater than us; but we can look at the evidence to know that this is true.

    Your last paragraph, I must say, is a mess. This passage "So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead, contrary to the evidence supplied, for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator." doesn't even make sense as good English. What exactly are you sayingg in the first clause? I have not made a special pleading fallacy. You have, by positing a God then insisting you don't have to explain him and that he gets to break all the rules. You then claim to have supplied "evidence," when in fact all you have done is repeat assertions.
    I like this sentence because though it is grammatical correct it confounds you: "So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead, contrary to the evidence supplied, for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator."

    Let me help you try to understand it: "So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator" because of the necessity of His existence outside time and space.

    How is God breaking rules since He does not exist in nature? He is only breaking rules if He exists in nature. You have to show why you think the evidence is not evidence rather than just saying it is not. All I can do in response is repeat the evidence you keep avoiding.

    The evidence, again, is that nature can't always have existed for we would have happened already in the backdrop of an alleged past eternity having had an eternity to do so. So we are left with no other possibility than the uncreated Creator must exist, no matter how hard that is to wrap your puny brain around. This is the beginning of humility. And we know who the Creator is by Christ because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, thus admitting Jesus is God though of course not openly as you maintain the course you are on to be eternally separated from your Creator. That's like rejecting your parents even though they don't deserve it. What love is that?

    Look, I know you're trying, so I'll make this part easy. Assertions are not arguments, nor are they evidence, and it's hardly "humble" to think otherwise. Nor is there any humility in claiming to know things you do not know. I will admit that I don't have knowledge of the ultimate origins of the universe. The thing is, neither do you, yet you insist you do. But placing your ignorance on an altar and calling it God is not humble. Just sayin'. You think I'm being the arrogant one here, but I'm not claiming to have all the answers to the question of existence. I am simply saying I don't believe theistic or supernatural explanations. I am open to evidence. But it has to be better than bald assertions and rhetoric.
    Oh yes, I do have the knowledge of the origins of the universe, and so do you even though you shut your mind down to it, because we all have a spirit of God-consciousness, inserted into us with the knowledge nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed; thus, there must exist the uncreated Creator. As the Bible says, simply by observing nature we know this to be true.

    "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).

    Here is where you get yourself into even more trouble when you claim you don't know the origin of the universe yet are atheist anyway, claiming God does not exist, which you have no evidence, nor able to counter the evidence against and for God. Talk about assertions! Why be doubleminded about this, applying rules to people you yourself don't have to adhere to? Why not treat others as you would like to be treated?

    Surely you can't deny there is such a thing as false humility? This is what you exhibit because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, which shouldn't be too hard a thing to do after all this time, and you can't overturn the fact if the universe always existed, then we would have had an eternity to already be what we have become. That's the problem with your eternity theory. It is illogical.

    What is at the center of our discussion is that you can't overturn these basic pieces of evidence, yet still remain an atheist. You're contradicting yourself. So one can fairly conclude it is because you have the same condition as Adam at the fall: independency and disobedience to your Creator that blocks off all fellowship with Him for that place called Hell which is devoid of God's presence as you wish.

    Even if, for the sake of argument, I was willing to grant your basic point that maybe there is some kind of uncreated something "outside" of nature (though you have presented no evidence at all that any realm outside of nature exists) responsible for creating the universe, you still have not gotten yourself any closer to a proof that this thing is necessarily the Christian God, and not anything else. It could be some other god, or some creative force or "prime mover" that bears no resemblance to anything any person has yet conceived. But we just don't have any evidence period.
    Again, just saying the evidence given is not evidence is not a valid retort. You have to show it rather that spout it and assert it blindly. Again, the Christian God would be the correct one, because you can't find a naturalistic origin for the disciples' beliefs. Why do you keep avoiding this? Since a God who is personal and reveals Himself is surely better than one who does not, your deistic God would fail to compare to Christ. How can God's nature be lower than ours? How can His standard be below that of His creation? You're like a mindless zombie (repeating "we just don't have any evidence") when the evidence is given, but you don't challenge it.

    God affords you this choice for the full gambit of choices afforded to man made in His image with free will. If you so choose to eternally separate yourself from God by never giving your life to Christ in this life, then so be it. How truly sad for you. How you decide to respond to Christ in this life determines where you spend eternity: as Jesus said, if you are not for Him, you most certainly are against Him. You have nobody to blame but yourself. It would be like those who have to spend their lives in jail, because society has deemed it unhealthy to ever let them out to harm people ever again. In like manner, you will spend eternity in Hell, so you can do no harm to God's people in the New City and New Earth. Praise the Lord! There is no greater love.

    Just about all of the "first cause" arguments for God have been put through their paces, Troy, and you haven't brought anything new to the table this time. I think you are confused at a very basic epistemological level. Start by tackling this one: demonstrate how you are able to distinguish that your God is real and not simply something you're imagining. Once you get past that one, perhaps we can then talk about this God's universe-creating techniques. Best,

    Martin
    The evidence speaks loud and clear, so therefore, it is really true all things sum up in Christ; now you have to tackle with the fact your imaginary universe that always existed is just a lame attempt to reject God and is entirely fantasy. Show me where you have overturned the first cause argument I have shown you and provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Unless and until you do so, may you continue to lead more people to Christ by your failed attempts as they are turned off by your avoidance. You're still avoiding this, and because you do, you should question your own sanity.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    William Lane Craig shows the same thing: an infinite regress cannot exist.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Troy, you're still not getting it.

    It's one thing to pose a God living "outside space and time" as a hypothesis. But you're going beyond the hypothetical, which means you need to provide stronger evidence for this being's existence apart from "there's no other choice". Setting aside the question of whether it is the only choice (and you have not demonstrated that either), the scientific method relies upon evidence, which is why it is not only not "unreasonable" to demand to know how this God supposedly creates universes from a realm "outside space and time," but essential to understanding what this God is that you're trying to propose at all.
    You're not getting it. Think. There is no other option. That is a substantial result. You can't ask for a better proof. When all known possibilities are impossible it is what you deemed impossible that must be true. Think of it this way. You can't come up with a better proof either for the uncreated Creator. Nor can I. It's perfect.

    Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there is no other option than the uncreated Creator no matter how much that unsettles you, leading to accountability and consequences for your life and how you choose to live it. To be an atheist is to deaden your conscience further to deny this accountability so you can get off on your sin and selfishness, delusionally denying the consequence that is administered by our Creator.

    That there is no other choice leaves us with no other choice, that's why you can't find any. There is nothing wrong with asking the question, How does God do it? But if no answer is forthcoming, that does not impact detrimentally on the fact that He did it, since there is no other choice. You may want to keep holding out for the possibility that one day something could prove otherwise, but is that reasonable? Let's say there was one last thing you didn't know in the universe, would you still hold out that it could show the universe always existed or that God does exist? You effectively would be claiming you would have to be God to know if God exists. That's a contradiction though since obviously, you are not God and never will be all-knowing which can only be reserved for the uncreated Creator. Besides, you still have not challenged the evidence that there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for if there had been, then we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

    Don't let your thinking separate you from God. Your flesh, which includes your thinking, is utterly corruptible and needs to die on the cross with Christ to receive new thinking that is clear minded and healthy for you. You are overweight because of this sin: gluttony.

    We know who God is by Christ, for none can compare to Christ, and you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Why still avoid this? Is that honest of you?

    As it stands, you have provided no method by which anyone can determine whether or not this God you propose is real, or just something you're making up. I could just as easily, using the "logic" you're employing, make the following argument: "The universe cannot have existed eternally due to the problem of infinite regress, nor can something have come from nothing. Therefore, the only possible alternative is that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, a transcendent being outside of space and time. No other option exists, and it is unreasonable to ask questions about the nature of this being, as it exists outside of space and time."
    See? It's really no different.
    The proof was given which you were unable to overturn, since nature could not always exist, nor start up from nothing, so the only possibility that exists is the uncreated Creator. There is not some mysterious fourth option as yet unrevealed. That's a pipe dream. And illogical. It would violate the law of cause and effect. You're just making up infinite regress.

    You are welcome to compare all possible uncreated Creators. But by doing so you are conceding the uncreated Creator exists, so the issue is not whether He exists, but who is He? Your "Great Green Arklesizure" fails the test since green is a product of nature, whereas you agreed the uncreated Creator is outsite time and space, and isn't the comical Arklesizure a comic of a Big Atom, but atoms are part of nature? Plus, your alleged deity is known by less than 1% of the population so it is inaccessible, whereas God of the Bible is accessible through Christ. Most have heard of God of the Bible. Accessible is better than inaccessible. Furthermore, Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection multiply attested in various groups settings and you still keep avoiding the burden that is on you to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. You lose anyway you go.

    Comparing claims of who the uncreated Creator is is most welcome, but do come to the victorious one.

    And just for future reference, before claiming any expertise on the rules of logic, check to make sure you still aren't throwing fallacies around left and right. You already had special pleading going, and now you're simply offering the argument from ignorance. "Because you do not have a naturalistic answer, God is the only alternative." Again, this is not how we determine facts about the universe. Not having an answer means not having an answer, it doesn't mean "I get to make up a magic being." This is called God of the Gaps, and it essentially demonstrates that God, conceptually, is little more than a placeholder for ignorance. Wherever we lack knowledge about how the universe actually functions, believers feel justified in spackling over that gap in knowledge with an all-purpose answer called "God". You don't seem to understand why that's epistemically incorrect.
    You didn't show any special pleading specifically nor any argument from ignorance, so why special plead this? Since that which is natural can't be the cause, then it must be that which is supernatural. There is no way around it. It is not a gap. It is a fact therefore the uncreated must exist and proves it by observing nature that it can't always have existed and there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. This is as good a proof as you can ask for. Your ignorance has locked you into not confronting this.

    There are many things we don't know in the universe, but since the universe can't always have existed, it is unreasonble to keep asking what caused a natural event naturally without God at the helm. You don't seem to understand why your approach is epistimically incorrect. Your whole life has been one big lie, but you are so headlong into it, it will certainly take a miracle to be delivered from it. Usually what God does, not always but depending on the person, is to throw that person into some deep illness like cancer or suffer other profound tragic loss for them to have the opportunity to reconsider reality. Without it you would surely go to Hell without recourse considering your current condition. That's what cancer is one cell goes rogue and independent and replicates unnaturally. It is the same with you in your hostility to God.

    Anyway, I decided to have a look at this 4-step proof of God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...Facts-Approach) you insist hasn't been answered. A lot of it relies on flat errors of fact (quantum physics does reveal the existence of perfectly natural non-causal events at the subatomic level—they are called quantum vacuum fluctuations) or flawed premises. Steps 1 and 2 do not prove the existence of a supernatural realm, they simply assume it, in yet another logical fallacy called begging the question; that is, the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to prove. This 4-step "proof" is not even structured as a logical proof. It is simply another list of assertions.
    We can't understand all things on the quantum level, so it seems a bit arrogant to take the most complicated things know to mankind and inject into them something happens from nothing in the backdrop of what we do know there are trillions and trillions of causes and effect in nature that is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially with no hard evidence something comes from nothing.

    You've contradicted yourself by saying "perfectly natural-non-causal events". A non-causal event is coming into being without a cause, but when you say something "comes into being" that is itself causally linked, so it can't come into being without a cause. That's goofy! Why be a goofball? Coming from nothing is impossible (now you are arguing Don Baker's approach above) and contradicting yourself still further, because before you said you don't believe something can come from nothing: "Anyway, I personally don't hold that something came from nothing." You're a ball of contradictions, following after Satan the author of confusion. Do you think it will put more money in your pocket somehow? Nor would that be natural that that which does not exist (which is not natural) produces the natural. An 8 year old can see these simple points, not someone who is steeped in delusion. Nothing always comes from nothing. Don't be a goofball! Lame reasons to reject God are lame!

    Don't just say that Step 1 & 2 don't prove the supernatural being, but show it. You must deal with the data and the argument presented to show why not. Just saying "no it's not" is not mature or a valid response. Likewise, don't just say it is not logical, but show it. Stop blowing smoke. Your assertions fail you because you can't show them by supplying some argument for them. Try to have the courtesy to deal with the information given to respond specifically.

    The 4SMFA "proof" is even worse. Briefly I'll list the fallacies in each point. 1) Appeal to authority. 2) Begging the question. 3) Appeal to belief. 4) False dilemma (with a bit of Circumstantial Ad Hominem thrown in to berate anyone who disagrees for having insufficient humility). You can Google any of those if you don't know what they are.
    Really, Troy, this stuff is just bad.
    Here is the mistaken assumptions you are a making. It is not an appeal to authority but the reasons why most scholars concede Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, since he died for his eyewitness testimony, the church was founded on the the resurrection, and he set up many churches revealed in the epistles, so there is certainly a foundational cornerstone for this along with so many corroborating individuals in the New Testament sharing travels, testimony and time together.

    As to begging the question, appeal to belief, false dilemma, those are fancy phrases but you were unable to apply them as you tried to remain as coy and vague as possible. You would need a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. None have been forthcoming. Your response would also have to be specific and not vague. Your coyness reveals your unethicalness.

    So I'm afraid that, epistemologically, you're still in a state of profound confusion. You still seem to think I am failing to counter your "evidence," but you just do not understand that your assertions are not evidence. So far — and try to pay attention to this because it's really been eluding you — all you have done is make claims and assert that there is no other possibility than that they are true. And you are calling this "evidence." Until you comprehend this very basic problem in your arguments, I'm afraid there's not much further we can go with this.

    Anyway, take care. I'm off to do the show.

    Martin
    If you think what I said was an assertion why don't you show? Why be evasive? You would need to find a naturalistic explanation not only for the universe, but also for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Perhaps you are taking on more than you can chew in life, following the busy buck around, not coming home to brass tax on this issue, for where is your specific response to these problems posed to you? All one can do is repeat the evidence as you keep avoiding it...

    Since there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature for we would have had an eternity to become what we are, we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so; therefore, the uncreated Creator is the only option. No other option exists, none are forthcoming, and it is illogical to hold out to be all knowing to know if it is true, since you could never be all knowing. And we know who God is by Jesus since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. That leaves you dumbfounded why you still believe what you do.

    PS: I'm not actually the only person who knows what BFF means. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bff
    There are many abbreviations for BFF. I am not here to guess which one you are using. Like the Bible says, don't speak in tongues. Be considerate to others.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Evidence is what matters. The Bible says "prove all things." The great evidentialist and lawyer of the 19th century Simon Greenleaf said, "Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

    http://biblocality.com/forums/list.p...imon-Greenleaf

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9691385
    2010-09-19 Show #675

    Live debate today between Troy Brooks vs. Martin Wagner and Russell Glasser. I can handle a little double teaming on me. I think I won because I don't know how to disprove my case. Go to the last 10 minutes of the show. They weren't very gracious giving me time to speak, but I think people got it!

    Notice how Wagner required there be a naturalistic explanation. Do you see that? He said, "You guys don't have a natural answer..." Of course we don't because the evidence shows us that nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. Why would I need a naturalistic explanation? That makes no sense. That is what you are trying to propose, not me.

    Wagner says, "You are asserting the existence of a magical God". Not at all. Magic we know has a naturalistic explanation. There is the necessity of the uncreated Creator outside of nature based on the evidence no other option exists since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. This is whom we call God. Very simple.

    Since there is no other option by this well founded evidence it cannot be an argument from ignorance, but it is an argument from ignorance and special pleading to say the universe always existed or started up all by itself when the evidence that we do have is contrary to that position. Why the doublestandard in labeling argument from ignorance when that is your position without evidence? Shutting your mind down to this fact doesn't make it go away. When all known possibilities are impossible, it is what you, yes you, thought to be impossible that must be the truth -- the uncreated Creator outside of time and space that our puny brains have troubles grasping. This is the beginning of humility. There is no humility in claiming you have to wait to know all things to know for sure since the evidence is already in. Besides you can never know that much anyway, so get off the pot. Always waiting to discover the next caused cause apart from God is dishonest and unethical. Never met an ethical atheist. That's false humility and people see it every time you open your mouth even though you can't see it.

    Russell Glasser asked how can I go from the uncreated Creator to the the resurrection of Jesus? Easily, since this is the best proof of who the uncreated Creator is. Resurrection cannot occur naturally, so it was supernatural. Since there are only two options, supernatural and natural, and the natural is shown to be impossible, then the supernatural must be it. No false dilemma.

    Take a simple example. Assuming no magic trick. If you have 3 cups and one marble is hidden under one of those 3 cups, then you turn over two of those cups but no marble is seen. You are not being ignorant by saying the marble is under the third cup since no other option exists. But you are being ignorant and pretentious if you say there is some other explanation. Likewise, since all known naturalistic explanations are fully exhausted and accounted for for the explanation of the universe, we are left with no other option than the uncreated Creator who, of course, reveals to us only what He wants to reveal, no more and no less.

    The argument from ignorance is not the approach being taken by theists for it is the evidence that leads us to this conclusion of the necessity for the uncreated Creator. We go with the evidence. The argument of ignorance is displayed in the position of claiming one is atheistic though since you can't be atheistic on the sole reason because of your opinion there is no God and no argument against such a wild claim. Atheism is the argument of ignorance. People who are in a false position will often project by accusation onto others that fallacy they themselves possess. For the atheist to escape their own argument from ignorance they would have to find a naturalistic explanation for the universe, but none have been forthcoming.

    For false dichotomy to be true of the theist, the atheist would have to show some other option could be viable but you don't. So do you see how you are misusing these logical fallacies? You're inserting your own assumption into them that are unsupported and shown to be false, since you don't need a billion years more to know nature can't always have existed, that no other option exists, and nature can't come from nothing. Bottom line: no evidence for atheism but definitely evidence for the uncreated Creator. Let's go with the evidence.

    For false dichotomy to not be true of the atheist, the atheist would have to show some other option exists than the uncreated Creator as well as tear down the evidence for the uncreated Creator that has been given. But since you can't do that, you would have to actually find a a third option to infinite regress and something from nothing in nature. No such third option exists not even in your fantasies.

    Think of it this way. You really can't ask for better evidence than the fact nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. See if you can. I assure you that you can't. Hence, Romans 1.20 is our guiding principle in this debate,

    "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).

    Praise the Lord, you're leading people to Christ because you can't overturn this evidence for the uncreated Creator (God) and that none can compare to Christ. Very simply, since God's standards can't be less than ours then it follows He must be personal and accessible. Since the weird god Russell Glasser proposes fails to compare with Christ, Jesus trumps your silly god. Since Jesus has this quality of being personal and accessible, and you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs (which should be relatively easy to do since this isn't rocket science) which you don't even try in our discourse then the debate is over.

    Thank you for your time, and thank you for strengthening my faith. This continues to prove the Biblical teaching of once-saved-always-saved (sadly William Lane Craig is a non-OSASer like the adherents of the Roman Church and larger part of Christendom), not that it had to be in experience, but because once you are made in God's image, and that is proven by what Jesus did for us on the cross, His resurrection and ascension, how can God's image ever cease to exist? Think how evil it would be of God to create you, give you a spirit of God-consciousness, yet you know you would cease to exist. What love is that? Surely God can do better than that.

    So those like my two debaters will be going to Hell because deep down inside in their heart of hearts they want to be eternally separated from their Creator. How truly sad for them, for they know not what they do. As the Bible says they are "condemned already" (John 3.18).

    But "we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8.28).

    And "as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him'" (1 Cor. 2.9).

    I almost forgot to mention Glasser and Wagner were disagreeing with each other. Wagner was still contending for no uncreated Creator while Glasser (an atheist) conceded the uncreated Creator. And really what do spectral evidence and the Salem Witch Trials that Glasser mentioned have to do with what we were talking about? Individual hallucinations are not the issue but group hallucinations which modern psychology says are impossible according to their latest DM-4 manual. And where did the quote I gave from Simon Greenleaf have anything to do with the Salem Witch Trials over a century before Greenleaf's time? Glasser and Wagner must have been tired from arguing so long they were getting a little crazy. I tried to get Glasser off that tangent. You can't tell me the center of the truth of all things falls upon some vague reference to Salem and spectral evidence. I don't even know what his argument was because he never said what it was. All he said was spectral evidence and Salem Witch Trials like Wagner asserted false dilemma, argument from ignorance and appeal to authority without actually showing it. When you quote an authority it is not the authority you are appealing to but his reasoning given. These guys think I am not a mind reader, but I am not, and secondary issues are irrelevant anyway to the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach.

    Part of the program was talking about what are the soul and spirit? Before you try to argue against them, figure out what they are first,
    http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm

    Very simply your spirit is in your innerman and your soul and body comprise your outerman. Your spirit has God-consciousness with the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. Your soul has the functions of mind, will and emotion and produce self-consciousness. Your body with its five senses give us world-consciousness. It's like a computer in a way. When you turn your computer off the spirit of it in 1's and 0's are saved, but when you turn it on the software works like one being raised from the dead so the soul becomes enlivened. Easy enough for us. How much more easy for God!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    AtheistExperience
    Re: http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistExperience?blend=2&ob=1

    Quote Originally Posted by AtheistExperience
    Hi,

    I hope your realize that this is a fan channel. If you wanted to contact the ACA, you will have to send an e-mail to tv@atheist-experience.org (preferably with AETV in the subject line). I am just a fan of the show with a YouTube channel, but I'll try to respond to your message.

    - "The reason I know atheism is wrong..."

    Atheism is not an ideology, and it doesn't make any assertions, so it can't be wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods (for lack of convincing evidence).
    Of course atheism is an ideology. It means something, not nothing, that's an idea. It does make assertions, that God does not exist, but since God is proven, therefore atheism is false. Atheism is the word in the English language to say there is no God whether you think you have evidence or not for your opinion. A lack of belief for or against God is called agnosticism. You're confusing terms. I realize the trend these last many years due to atheists being embarrassed in their stance but still want to be atheists are trying to change the meaning of atheism to agnosticism so they can still keep calling themselves atheists, but what that reveals to me about you guys is your conscience is speaking but you are not listening to it.

    - "obviously something can't come from nothing"

    Well... maybe that is not so obvious. I am not a quantum physicist, so I can't explain it in detail, but Stephen Hawking and a co-writer recently published a new book that explains how our universe (and possibly other universes) could have appeared out of seemingly nothing. Apparently "nothing" is an unstable state that automatically has to become something else; not because a God has a specific intention with that, but just because the laws of nature and quantum mechanics make it do that.
    You're confusing that which looks like nothing but is still something with actually nothing that which does not exist. Since the universe can't come from the latter nothing nor always have existed then the ultimate cause is the uncreated Creator if you want to be logical about it.

    Again, I am not an expert on this, and I find it hard to visualize such things, but at the quantum level particles just seem to pop in and out of existence, so "something out of nothing" seems to be happening all the time. If you are interested in a lecture about the current scientific ideas, you can watch "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
    That's a very popular video being passed around. I have seen it many times before and watched it all once. Just because you don't know the cause to why those particles come into your viewing range is no reason to think they come into existence from nothing. That's quackery. Scientists don't close up shop at that point and say there is no more cause to be found. How silly. There are trillions of causes in nature and no reason to think something comes from nothing. Actually that video gets really weird. Krauss tries to postulate the universe is nothing and comes from nothing because he says all things balance out to zero. That's just one big fat assumption and a contradiction since the universe would not exist if it was nothing.

    - "if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, there would have been an eternity to do so, so it would have happened already. Yet here we are."

    It's 3:30 a.m. for me, yet here I am, but I'm a little bit tired, so I'll just assume that this is a "first cause" argument that might have been used by William Lane Craig, and that is probably already refuted somewhere else. I think that TruthfulChristian2 or someone like that also made a video with a similar argument. There was also a response video which showed why that argument was wrong. I don't remember where I saw that, but I remember that the argument was wrong.
    Blah Blah blah. Probably already refuted somewhere else? If you can't show it, then you are just assuming.

    - "Therefore, since no other naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, we are left inextricably with the necessity of the uncreated Creator."

    This seems to be an argument from ignorance. You are basically saying, "you don't have another explanation, so my explanation must be right," and "we don't know what else it could be, so let's call it God or the Creator." That is all very nice, but that still doesn't prove that Atheism or not believing in any gods is wrong, because even if there is such a Creator, we still don't know who Creator is and what He wants, if anything.
    Since it can't be natural, it is supernatural. No other option exists, and you don't need to wait for eternity to find out, otherwise arrogantly you are claiming you have to be like God all-knowing to know. Obviously you will never be all-knowing. That there is no other option is not an argument from ignorance since it is evidenced in the fact that it can't be natural. Argument from ignorance is claiming what I am telling you is true because you can't disprove it. That is not the approach I take. The reason the uncreated Creator exists is because of the evidence nature can't always have existed or come from nothing. And since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs that is so well testified, then this proves who the supernatural uncreated Creator is.

    You may say that the Creator is the Christian god God, but the Muslims can say that it's Allah, the Hindus can say that it's Brahma, and the ancient Egyptians could have said that it was Amun, or whatever. Pantheists might say that that Creator only created the universe and then left it alone. You could even imagine a creative goddess who died in the process of giving birth to our universe, or universe-creating pixies.
    You're encouraged to compare claims on who the uncreated Creator is for which one will come forth triumphant. You know Islam is wrong not only because it has no evidence for its god like we have for God of the Bible by the resurrection proof, but also because it falsifies itself since the Koran teaches Jesus never died on the cross nor was even taken to the cross. Making this claim six centuries later is absurd and contrary to all the evidence we do have in the first century. Hinduism's Brahma is false because it is an amoral god. How can the Creator have morals below our own? As to other gods, compare them one by one, and you will see not only are they not well testified, but they are unprovable, since you don't receive any hard data like we have from the eyewitness testimonies in various group settings and a strong religio-historical context of 40 authors over 1500 years in agreement to produce 66 inspired books. An impersonal absentee landlord is evil, so God who personally enters His creation and makes Himself accessible is better. for God's morality can't fall below His created beings. Imagining things is not a valid approach. It is the evidence that in all Paul's travels in setting up the churches with other Apostles that his foundation was real in what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, so these are clearly Paul's words, testimony and genuine beliefs. Read those 3 chapters by Paul.

    The ancient Egyptians believed that the first god felt so lonely that he created everything by masturbating and then impregnating his own self-created mother in order to be reborn as his own son... or something like that. (Don't try this at home!)

    You can make the story as crazy as you want, because even if you assume that there had to be a Creator, you still can't make the link from that Creator to a specific god and a specific religion. Even if there was such a Creator, how do we know what He/She/It wants from us?

    And how do we know that He/She/It is still present in our universe? Why should such a god even want to be inside of this universe anyway, if He/She/It could also live without it? Let's think of the Creator as a watchmaker, and let's think of our universe as a carefully designed watch? Why would the designer crawl inside of that watch and check every cogwheel, if He could also wind it up, put it away and just let it tick?

    So, to make a long story short, even it there is an "uncreated Creator," we still don't know who that is, or what the Creator wants from us, if anything. What are that Creator's intentions? Does the Creator even have intentions, or could the Creator be a blind and spastic child that accidentally makes things? There are so many possibilities that the idea of a Creator still doesn't explain much. Why should we worship and pray to that Creator, if He/She/It may not even care about us? And how do we know all that?
    That is crazy I agree that God could feel lonely since that is inadequacy, so since we both agree it is crazy and certainly not evidenced at all, it can hardly compare to the multiple eyewitness testimony of the original disciples having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. It's really quite simple when you get down to it. The Creator would be accessible so that leaves only Christianity, not even Islam or Hinduism. The rest are minuscule in comparison. Since Islam and Hinduism are shown to be false, then that leaves Christianity only. Even if you didn't know anything about it, you know it would have to be true since no other option exists.

    How do we know what God wants from us? He reveals it to us in His word, the 66 books of the Bible.

    The uncreated Creator is always existing. We know He is omnipresent, able to touch all points at any time in the universe because He exists outside of time. Why does God want to enter His creation? Because He loves us and does not want us to go to Hell like you have your heart set on. So He died on the cross for the sins of the world to save whosoever is willing. God expresses His glory and does so in a perfect creation. God is relational in His Triune Being, so making us in His image is for Him to have fellowship with. Surely that gives God more glory than God doing nothing. God would be perfect in all He does always. Always righteous, holy and true. Since God cares about us as evident by what Jesus did for us on the cross, then He is worthy of your praise and worship.

    Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Christ, pp. 266-267 So what? What difference does this make? There are several obvious implications.
    1) If Jesus is the Son of God, his teachings are more than just good ideas from a wise teacher; they are divine insights on which I can confidently build my life.
    2) If Jesus sets the standard of morality, I can now have an unwavering foundation for my choices and decisions, rather than basing them on the ever-shifting of expediency and self-centeredness.
    3) If Jesus did rise from the dead, he's still alive today and available for me to encounter on a personal basis.
    4) If Jesus conquered death, he can open the door to eternal life for me, too.
    5) If Jesus has divine power, he has the supernatural ability to guide me and help me and transform me as I follow him.
    6) If Jesus personally knows the pain of loss and suffering, he can comfort and encourage me in the midst of the turbulence that he himself warned is inevitable in a world corrupted by sin.
    7) If Jesus loves me as he says, he has my best interest at heart. That means I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by committing myself to him and his purposes.
    8) If Jesus is who he claims to be (and remember, no leader of any other major religion has ever pretended to be God), as my Creator he rightfully deserves my allegiance, obedience, and worship.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    586
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Leading Martin Wagner to Christ,

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9708948

    or




    Continue the discussion here if you like,

    http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/

    I would join in the discussion further, but Martin Wagner banned me from further discussion on his site, cornering himself into a little box, so you are welcome to talk here with me if you like. I would be happy to repeat the proof to you for God and who God is and why all attempts to disprove these proofs are erroneous.

    "TheAtheistExperience" also cut and pasted just my call-in on Youtube,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXkc7ToYsTI

    Though I am probably still banned from their highly censored and childish blog, this is something to think about genuinely if you can muster the strength to do so. Think of the copout you are engaged in. Wagner, you're saying it is argument from ignorance because we say no other option exists than the uncreated Creator, but you could always use this argument if you assume there could be some other explanation. But that is beyond reasonability. Think about it. If you have 3 cups with one marble hidden under one of them, you lift up 2 cups, assuming no simple magical trick, the marble must be under cup 3. To assume some other naturalistic explanation is therefore stupid and dishonest with yourself. You're special pleading, committing the fallacy from ignorance and false dilemma. Why is it ok for you to commit these sins? So in reality there really is only two options for the explanation of existence of this universe and us in it. ONLY one can be true. If there is a third option and this is a false dilemma then you should produce the 3rd option or get off the pot. Those two options are uncreated Creator or infinite regress. That's how nature always works with cause and effect (trillions of causes to prove it-overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt-and no hard evidence for something in nature from nothing) so there is infinite regress or creation by the uncreated Creator who proves Himself even further by what Jesus did and the multiple eyewitness testimony for seeing Jesus up close and personal in various group settings. All possible naturalist explanations have been exhausted so, Jesus really resurrected and did so because only God could do this.

    Since infinite regress cannot be true because we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, this necessitates that which is outside the universe is the cause of the universe. It is really quite bizarre and immoral to be an atheist, thinking there is no accountability. Oh but there is! Shutting your mind down doesn't may accountability disappear.

    The cause that is outside of nature must be timeless, uncreated, spaceless, all-knowing, able to touch all points in time instantly, has a mind and is sentient, because the Creator can never have qualities lesser than His created beings. Amen.

    Since a young child can understand this basic logic, we can conclude the reason why someone does not accept reasonable proven faith is because there is a hostility residing deep within them by the evil spirit indwelling their innerman that motivates them and they let take reign of their lives on the road to perdition.

    Atheists are bad people through and through. The evil percolating among them is palpable like when they all head out to the restaurant together after gang banging each other.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Atheist Experience Show Pre-Show #759 and #760
    By Parture in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-13-2012, 11:37 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-04-2011, 10:25 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 09:31 AM
  4. The Leading Atheist No Longer Atheist
    By Churchwork in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2008, 05:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •