Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Overman View Post
I've spent some time thinking about this, and I now realize how Troy operates. Pseudo-logic. It uses language that is somewhat logical, but when you look below the surface, there is nothing there. Troy, I don't mean to sound condescending, but you would do a much better job of illustrating your point if you gained a better understanding of what a good argument is. I'm pointing this out because of the "argument" you posted here:

If you actually believe that this is an argument, then you don't know what an argument is. I will provide some resources to help you come to a better understanding of logic. The Wikipedia page on arguments is a good introduction. This book will also help you out tremendously. And of course, I'm willing to answer any questions you might have.
All you have done is assert your accusation, but you don't actually show it. Why should anyone believe you if you can't show it? I could say your IQ is below 100, but unless I show it, nobody should believe me. Being coy and vague indicate the weakness of your stance, because it shows you got nothing. You would need to deal specifically with the proof for God and who God is. Here it is again...
Since nature has been proven to always have a cause by the overwhelming number of cause and effects (no hard evidence to the contrary), this necessarily leads to an infinite regress, but you would have happened already having an eternity to do so, so therefore, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Pure logic. Since nature can't always have existed, that which is outside of nature (time, space and matter) necessarily must exist that brings the universe into being. This timeless and spaceless uncaused cause is our uncreated Creator. This is whom we call God. So the question then becomes who is God? Many can claim to be God or make claims about who God is, but unless they have some evidence they need not be considered. You can also forget about any claims where God is not intelligent, personal and accessible, for how can God's standards be lower than His creation? You can also throw out any claims where sin is not effectively addressed. Only does Jesus prove He is God. After saying He is God and predicting His death and resurrection, the original disciples testified to having seen Him alive from the dead in various group settings. Since all naturalistic explanations are impossible, then no naturalistic explanation can account for their testimony. Hence, Jesus rose from the dead proving His deity as the uncreated Creator, that He died on the cross for the sins of the world and salvation is only through Him. So unless you are willing to come to the cross as a helpless sinner you surely will go to Hell.
I'm not the kind of person to expect people to illustrate their thought process in a syllogistic form. That's a ridiculous demand. However, I do believe that anyone attempting to make a claim, should be able to illustrate their evidence in such a way that it can be analyzed logically. The alternative would be that they are illustrating their point illogically, and then the audience may rightly discard their claim without a second thought. Several times now I have attempted to come to a better understanding of what you are claiming. I have asked you to define some terms, clarify some points that didn't make sense, and in one case I even broke down the argument you were making into a syllogistic form to better illustrate the point that I did not accept. You have responded by failing to define your terms, obfuscating where you should be clarifying, and rejecting the syllogistic form of your own argument. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding you, but from my perspective, it looks like you're trying to run away from the discussion. This serves only to make your side of the debate look really bad. I hope that's not true, though. There's a reason I started this discussion with an attempt to set some common ground upon which we could move the dialogue forward.
More vague talk avoiding the proof for God just given that has been provided time and again. This really does show the the weakness of your position. Unless and until you deal with the proof for God given here, your evasiveness is just further proving the pitiful state you are going to Hell.

At this point, I'm willing to start with a clean slate, and just handle one argument at a time. If you'd like, you can even copy and paste an argument from William Lane Craig's website, and I'll point out any problems I have with it, and then you can make an effort to support it. As of this moment, you have not made an argument. So, let's see one.
What I have given you comes from the Holy Spirit, not William Lane Craig. Since William Lane Craig is not born-again, since he is a non-OSASer, it's best to stick with the Holy Spirit and not someone like yourself who is going to Hell because they are too selfish refusing to give their lives to the God who keeps.