Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: The Atheist Experience TV Show

  1. #11
    Thumper Guest

    Default

    If the universe is infinite, from a temporal point of view, why is right now any more unlikely for us to exist that any other point in time? Why is your God correct and true while the other 2 Abrahamic religions are wrong?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    592
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thumper View Post
    If the universe is infinite, from a temporal point of view, why is right now any more unlikely for us to exist that any other point in time? Why is your God correct and true while the other 2 Abrahamic religions are wrong?
    If there was an infinite regress to the universe there would have been an eternity to have happened already so you would have been born, lived and died already, having had an eternity to do so. This is not about likelihood of probability as to when you would come into being, but literally you would have had to come into being prior to your actual existence since you would have had an eternity to do so. Where it gets really weird is this past eternity would continue on for eternity before you could come into being, so you should have never existed at all. These inherent contradictions that arise from a past eternity expose it as false. All kinds of mathematical inconsistencies arise from the fantasy of infinite regress. Hilbert's Hotel shows this better than any I think. And the thing is, once you start taking on one fantasy, then another, who knows where you will stop in your mistaken assumptions and overassuming. Your condition sinks further.

    God of the Bible and His Plan the correct one for many reasons, the most important of which are, Judaism and Islam are works-based faiths, but that is illogical because salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. A person can't save himself by works, that would never satisfy God's heart since a sinner's works could never match up to an infinitely greater God. Hence, we see Abel's free will offering that was not from works so it was accepted, whereas Cain's offering was from the fruit of his labor that God rejected. A person is a sinner and the only way to redeem that person back to God is through grace by faith so that God can begin working in him. It is highly arrogant to think a person can work his way into forgiveness.

    Judaism ignores all the Messianic prophecies for their Messiah.

    And the Koran claimed Jesus never died and never even went to the cross. There is nothing to support this six centuries later to overturn all the evidence that Jesus died by crucifixion. The evidence is just too overwhelming and so well documented, it is as sure a fact in history as any in antiquity.

  3. #13
    Thumper Guest

    Default

    @Parture

    "The evidence is just too overwhelming and so well documented, it is as sure a fact in history as any in antiquity. "

    Yet, from a global perspective, not even 1 in 3 people believe that; if it is so obvious and so well evidenced why is that? Why in today's society do so many people from religious backgrounds turn away from that religion? It is not about selfishness and a lack of morality so don't even try that.

    “there would have been an eternity to have happened already so you would have been born, lived and died already, having had an eternity to do so.”

    You are hung up on word games with eternity and not thinking about infinity correctly. In a truly infinite universe with no beginning and no end any one single point in time is exactly as valid as any other; past and future have no meaning as concepts. There is not an eternity before I am born and an eternity after I die; there is simply eternity, that I happen along during.

    “salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. A person can't save himself by works, that would never satisfy God's heart since a sinner's works could never match up to an infinitely greater God. Hence, we see Abel's free will offering that was not from works so it was accepted, whereas Cain's offering was from the fruit of his labor that God rejected.”

    You are asserting this to be true based on your personal beliefs and expect me to just ‘take your word for it’? Your reference to the myth of Cain and Abel is not proof of anything, it is a story.

  4. #14
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    Parture,

    I've got some issues with a lot of what's going on in this conversation (both on air and off), and a lot of it stems from unproductive dialogue.

    Rather than address the problems I see in your argument, I think it would be a lot better if I first established a framework upon which we can build a cohesive discussion. You're talking about time a lot throughout your arguments, and if we can't come to an agreement or even partial understanding of what exactly time is, then this is just a huge waste of... well, you know.

    When I talk about time, I don't use the same definition that a physicist would use. Such an analysis would break down as soon as you attempt to establish a non-physical entity (which is probably what you believe in), so that wouldn’t be prudent. Instead, I will be using a logical definition of time, and that is precisely what I am establishing with this post.


    Imagine I were to hold a perfectly usable basketball in front of you and ask, “Is this ball inflated?” You would say yes.

    Then, I poke a hole in the ball and allow it to deflate. I then ask, “Is this ball inflated?” You would say no. Would it be fair for me to say that you have contradicted yourself? After all, you said that the ball is both inflated and not inflated. That can’t be the case, right? But this would be unfair, and in order to illustrate why my criticism does not hold, you would have to invoke time.

    Time is defined as the fact that there is change, or an analysis of said change.

    So with our basketball, all the questions I have asked so far have been consistently in regards to the same object, and the same status (its inflation). However, each question was made in regards to a different point in time, what logicians call a situation. So we can refine my two questions in this way:

    Is the basketball inflated in situation A?
    Is the basketball inflated in situation B?

    Now, it becomes clear that although our original two questions were grammatically identical, they had two different meanings, because they were asking about the state of affairs in regards to two different situations.

    You might say that the law of non-contradiction already acknowledges this, as it states that x cannot be true and false simultaneously. But I should point out that the reason the law contains that word is because of precisely the analysis I have put forward here.

    So if this is the definition of time that we are going to work with, I have a few problems with your argument. Before I go on with that, let me know if you acknowledge this definition.

    If you do, great. Just let me know, and I’ll procede. If not, then let me know why you don’t. Is it incoherent? Have I contradicted myself? Is it totally incompatible with the way we ordinarily speak about time? Or, maybe you just need me to go into more detail on a few issues (which I’d be happy to do). But know this, if this definition simply will not work, then I’m going to ask you what your definition is. If you can’t provide one, then I will rightly disregard your entire argument. It would be, by definition, incoherent.

    I look forward to your response.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    592
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thumper View Post
    @Parture

    "The evidence is just too overwhelming and so well documented, it is as sure a fact in history as any in antiquity. "

    Yet, from a global perspective, not even 1 in 3 people believe that; if it is so obvious and so well evidenced why is that? Why in today's society do so many people from religious backgrounds turn away from that religion? It is not about selfishness and a lack of morality so don't even try that.
    I am sure more than 1 in 3 people in the world believe Jesus was a real person since 1 in 3 people call themselves Christian at least, but not everyone gives their lives to Christ as that is their choice. Why is Jesus so well evidenced? Because nobody in antiquity has as as many sources written about them. The reason you don't give your life to Christ is because of selfishness and your immoral sin nature and free will that you want to be that way. How sad for you that this is the way you want to be. All is proven here.

    “there would have been an eternity to have happened already so you would have been born, lived and died already, having had an eternity to do so.”

    You are hung up on word games with eternity and not thinking about infinity correctly. In a truly infinite universe with no beginning and no end any one single point in time is exactly as valid as any other; past and future have no meaning as concepts. There is not an eternity before I am born and an eternity after I die; there is simply eternity, that I happen along during.
    I am not saying some points in your fanciful infinite regress would not be as valid as another if your fantasy was true. Past and future have no meaning as concepts? Sure they do. If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. If "there is not an eternity before I am born" then the universe was created. You are committing the very error you accuse of playing word games with your doubletalk by saying "there is not an eternity before I am born" and there is "a truly infinite universe with no beginning". The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Come on now, admit it, you are a zombie for Satan. You're trying so hard but still fail each time. It shows that you don't care for the truth, don't seek for the truth with an honest, so you don't care how goofy you sound in your arguments. The flesh can rationalize anything and will do so for eternity in Hell.

    “salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. A person can't save himself by works, that would never satisfy God's heart since a sinner's works could never match up to an infinitely greater God. Hence, we see Abel's free will offering that was not from works so it was accepted, whereas Cain's offering was from the fruit of his labor that God rejected.”

    You are asserting this to be true based on your personal beliefs and expect me to just ‘take your word for it’? Your reference to the myth of Cain and Abel is not proof of anything, it is a story.
    Firstly it stands logically an infinitely greater God could never be satisfied with our works because we could work for eternity and He would still be eternally unsatisfied with our works because those works do not originate in Him but sin and/or self. Only God's works are adequate. Anything less is inadequate. That you don't appreciate this is due to your self-exalted self like Lucifer when he fell and became Satan. You're oblivious to your sin nature because your sin nature has clouded your judgment. But don't take my word for it, take Jesus' words for it, since He proved it to be true by His resurrection. The burden is on you to show Cain and Abel are myth. Unless and until you do so, nobody should believe you.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    592
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Overman View Post
    Parture,

    I've got some issues with a lot of what's going on in this conversation (both on air and off), and a lot of it stems from unproductive dialogue.

    Rather than address the problems I see in your argument, I think it would be a lot better if I first established a framework upon which we can build a cohesive discussion. You're talking about time a lot throughout your arguments, and if we can't come to an agreement or even partial understanding of what exactly time is, then this is just a huge waste of... well, you know.

    When I talk about time, I don't use the same definition that a physicist would use. Such an analysis would break down as soon as you attempt to establish a non-physical entity (which is probably what you believe in), so that wouldn’t be prudent. Instead, I will be using a logical definition of time, and that is precisely what I am establishing with this post.

    Imagine I were to hold a perfectly usable basketball in front of you and ask, “Is this ball inflated?” You would say yes.

    Then, I poke a hole in the ball and allow it to deflate. I then ask, “Is this ball inflated?” You would say no. Would it be fair for me to say that you have contradicted yourself? After all, you said that the ball is both inflated and not inflated. That can’t be the case, right? But this would be unfair, and in order to illustrate why my criticism does not hold, you would have to invoke time.
    Yes that is a bad analogy because it was inflated before you poked a hole in it but not afterward so there is no contradiction.

    Time is defined as the fact that there is change, or an analysis of said change.

    So with our basketball, all the questions I have asked so far have been consistently in regards to the same object, and the same status (its inflation). However, each question was made in regards to a different point in time, what logicians call a situation. So we can refine my two questions in this way:

    Is the basketball inflated in situation A?
    Is the basketball inflated in situation B?

    Now, it becomes clear that although our original two questions were grammatically identical, they had two different meanings, because they were asking about the state of affairs in regards to two different situations.
    Before you poked a hole it was inflated, not deflated. After you poked a hole, it was deflated, not inflated. Bad analogy. You might be able to poke a hole in a basketball but you can't poke a hole in the perfect proof for God of the Bible,

    http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...Facts-Approach

    You might say that the law of non-contradiction already acknowledges this, as it states that x cannot be true and false simultaneously. But I should point out that the reason the law contains that word is because of precisely the analysis I have put forward here.

    So if this is the definition of time that we are going to work with, I have a few problems with your argument. Before I go on with that, let me know if you acknowledge this definition.

    If you do, great. Just let me know, and I’ll procede. If not, then let me know why you don’t. Is it incoherent? Have I contradicted myself? Is it totally incompatible with the way we ordinarily speak about time? Or, maybe you just need me to go into more detail on a few issues (which I’d be happy to do). But know this, if this definition simply will not work, then I’m going to ask you what your definition is. If you can’t provide one, then I will rightly disregard your entire argument. It would be, by definition, incoherent.

    I look forward to your response.
    You really are confusing yourself. Realize you are trying so hard because you are starting from the premise God must not exist. The reason you do that is because of the hostility infusing you everywhere throughout all your flesh, from your body to your soul, even to your spirit. All of you is hostile to your Creator as you were born into sin, but God created you with free will and the ability to respond to His saving grace. Most mercifully, the Holy Spirit continues to woo you, but you keep erecting a brick wall. There is no other solution to this than your eternity in Hell.

    Start from the evidence instead of your hostility. Wipe your slate clean. The evidence tells us nature could not always have existed because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so the universe could not always have existed, so time and space had to come into being from outside of time and space. This outside time and space uncreated Creator is whom we call God and we know who He is specifically: non other than Jesus Christ as multiply testified by the disciples who spent 3 years with Him and saw Him alive from the dead in various group settings. Amen.

    Since you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and all known possibilities have been accounted for it therefore must be true Jesus was raised from the dead, died for the sins of the world and resurrected Himself from Abraham's bosom on the third day. Amen again.

  7. #17
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Yes that is a bad analogy because it was inflated before you poked a hole in it but not afterward so there is no contradiction.

    Before you poked a hole it was inflated, not deflated. After you poked a hole, it was deflated, not inflated. Bad analogy. You might be able to poke a hole in a basketball but you can't poke a hole in the perfect proof for God of the Bible
    I really don't think you're understanding me. The basketball analogy was intentionally flawed to show that in order to prove that it is flawed, you would have to invoke time, and that's precisely what you have done. You used words like "before" and "then" and "afterward." You are comparing situations, just like I had illustrated. You're only proving my point.

    You really are confusing yourself. Realize you are trying so hard because you are starting from the premise God must not exist. The reason you do that is because of the hostility infusing you everywhere throughout all your flesh, from your body to your soul, even to your spirit. All of you is hostile to your Creator as you were born into sin, but God created you with free will and the ability to respond to His saving grace. Most mercifully, the Holy Spirit continues to woo you, but you keep erecting a brick wall. There is no other solution to this than your eternity in Hell.

    Start from the evidence instead of your hostility. Wipe your slate clean. The evidence tells us nature could not always have existed because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so the universe could not always have existed, so time and space had to come into being from outside of time and space. This outside time and space uncreated Creator is whom we call God and we know who He is specifically: non other than Jesus Christ as multiply testified by the disciples who spent 3 years with Him and saw Him alive from the dead in various group settings. Amen.

    Since you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and all known possibilities have been accounted for it therefore must be true Jesus was raised from the dead, died for the sins of the world and resurrected Himself from Abraham's bosom on the third day. Amen again.
    Ordinarily, when someone misrepresents the argument of another, I'm willing to chalk it up as a simple misunderstanding. Sometimes, people go into strawman territory. Where did I start with the premise that god does not exist? Where did I even mention god in my post? If you have a problem with my argument, then address the problem. Don't manufacture problems so you will have something to attack.

    You have yet to actually criticize anything I've said. So if you don't have anything else to add in response to what we have discussed, then I'll proceed. All I'm trying to do right now is be as clear as possible so each of us knows precisely what the other means. If your argument is a good one, then clarity and understanding will benefit your side of the debate.

  8. #18
    Thumper Guest

    Default

    Because nobody in antiquity has as as many sources written about them.”

    Yeah right, except every source is based on lost works or works of dubious authenticity written by church leaders that were not exactly objective. There is not one single historical record about Jesus that can be used as evidence of his existence in any way, please don’t cite Josephus he wrote far more about completely irrelevant figures of the time than he he ever wrote about your Jesus and what is attributed to him is in serious doubt. The Bible has no information on 90% of Jesus’ life and can hardly be cited as a historical document.

    This is probably a waste of time as you clearly are not interested in considering other points of view. I am not a Zombie for Satan because Satan is not real, like Jesus. Of course your God doesn’t care about works, he has been very clear on that; he just wants you to worship him and worship him and worship him – and maybe kill some people if he asks you to. Not sure why such an awesome being would care about your worship but have at it. If you want to have a real conversation about our different views on things you need to make a serious attempt at a discussion. Stop preaching and repeating unfounded assertions. You are talking AT people not talking to them. Lastly, there is no way that the burden is on me to prove that your holy book of truths is not true. By that standard I would have to prove that the story of Lord Xenu is not true as well; how exactly do I do that? Is it your position that I should just accept a story that was written down on paper in the past?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    592
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Overman View Post
    I really don't think you're understanding me. The basketball analogy was intentionally flawed to show that in order to prove that it is flawed, you would have to invoke time, and that's precisely what you have done. You used words like "before" and "then" and "afterward." You are comparing situations, just like I had illustrated. You're only proving my point.
    You're only proving the point that atheism is false by the use of time. An infinite regress is proven to be flawed by observing time because if there was an infinite regress (in time), we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Your analogy proves that atheism is a lie of the Devil.

    Ordinarily, when someone misrepresents the argument of another, I'm willing to chalk it up as a simple misunderstanding. Sometimes, people go into strawman territory. Where did I start with the premise that god does not exist? Where did I even mention god in my post? If you have a problem with my argument, then address the problem. Don't manufacture problems so you will have something to attack.
    You don't have to say that you are starting from the premise God does not exist, but it is all over you like a wet rag. That's why you are coming up with an analogy that proves atheism to be false yet are trying to do just the opposite.

    You have yet to actually criticize anything I've said. So if you don't have anything else to add in response to what we have discussed, then I'll proceed. All I'm trying to do right now is be as clear as possible so each of us knows precisely what the other means. If your argument is a good one, then clarity and understanding will benefit your side of the debate.
    All you have done is show that time proves you are going to Hell. Stop boring me to death.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    592
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thumper View Post
    “Because nobody in antiquity has as as many sources written about them.”

    Yeah right, except every source is based on lost works or works of dubious authenticity written by church leaders that were not exactly objective. There is not one single historical record about Jesus that can be used as evidence of his existence in any way, please don’t cite Josephus he wrote far more about completely irrelevant figures of the time than he he ever wrote about your Jesus and what is attributed to him is in serious doubt. The Bible has no information on 90% of Jesus’ life and can hardly be cited as a historical document.
    There are 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' life. Nobody even comes close to that in antiquity. Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources. If Jesus didn't exist, then nobody in antiquity did, so you're just being ignorant. That's why almost all skeptical scholars concede Jesus lived, died on the cross and the disciples' truly believed they had seen Him alive from the dead. You're just a nut job.

    This is probably a waste of time as you clearly are not interested in considering other points of view. I am not a Zombie for Satan because Satan is not real, like Jesus. Of course your God doesn’t care about works, he has been very clear on that; he just wants you to worship him and worship him and worship him – and maybe kill some people if he asks you to. Not sure why such an awesome being would care about your worship but have at it. If you want to have a real conversation about our different views on things you need to make a serious attempt at a discussion. Stop preaching and repeating unfounded assertions. You are talking AT people not talking to them. Lastly, there is no way that the burden is on me to prove that your holy book of truths is not true. By that standard I would have to prove that the story of Lord Xenu is not true as well; how exactly do I do that? Is it your position that I should just accept a story that was written down on paper in the past?
    Satan is proven to exist because Jesus is proven to be God who spoke about the Devil and Hell more than anyone else. You really are a zombie for Satan going to Hell unwilling to think through this rationally, because you want to be eternally separated from God. You're a bad guy.

    God does care about works, but not for initial salvation for no man can save himself. Works flow from new life. Who are you going to worship? Self? There is no one to worship but God. Anything less is an idol.

    God is going to ask Peter and John and James to kill people? You're ignorant and obnoxious. 200 million died in the 20th century due to wars started by atheists and their high moral principles. You're a sick guy.

    The burden is on you since you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, so stop talking at people and deal with this. Stop repeating your mistaken assumptions.

    God is accessible, your Lord Zeno is not, that was an easy victory.

    All you need to do is come up with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Pretty simple. Stop avoiding, stop preaching, but deal with it. Don't shy away. Time to grow up. Since the uncreated Creator is proven because the universe can't always have existed, the question is a simple one. Where does God reveal Himself personally? This is fulfilled in no one but Christ.

    Let this be a proof you are going to Hell because you reject the greatest love every known and the ransom that has been paid to save you from Satan, sin and self. You will carry with you your hostility to burn in the lake of fire for all eternity. How truly sad for you that this is the type of person you prefer to be. What a despicable condition to be in.

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, 12:37 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-04-2011, 11:25 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:31 AM
  4. The Leading Atheist No Longer Atheist
    By Churchwork in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2008, 06:14 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
  •