The Atheist Experience TV Show

[Thumper]

@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.

[Tyler Overman]

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.

[Parture]

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.

[Tyler Overman]

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.

[Parture]

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.

[Tyler Overman]

So apparently you're accepting my definition of time, because you're saying that it proves that atheism is false. You can't go that route while rejecting my definition, because then you'd have no argument.

Given time as I have defined it, we can also define what an infinite expanse of time would look like. If you try to define it in terms of numbers, you're going to fail, because infinity is not a number. Take any given situation. We'll call it x. We can ask ourselves, does a situation precede x? The answer is either yes or no. If there is, then we will ask the same question in regards to that situation. And so on and so on. From this, we can extrapolate a dichotomous position. Either we will eventually answer "No, there is no situation before this one," or we will never hit that point. You shouldn't reject this either-or position, because this confirms the very same dichotomy you were attempting to establish on the show. And this is where you and I agree. I think Martin was wrong to call this a false dichotomy.

So this is where things start to get incomprehensible on your part. You are attempting to show that there cannot be an infinite regress because...

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.

This makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "we would have happened?" What do you mean "already?" Already from what perspective? You're not really proving anything, here. You're asserting incoherent stuff to prove your point. Now, if you could illustrate to me how an infinite regress is necessarily incoherent, then I would agree.

Seeing as how we are left with two options, either an infinite regression of past events, or some point in time in which there is no situation which precedes it, you're arguing against the former, so I will take it you accept the latter. You've still got some problems to reconcile. Namely, if you believe that God is the prime mover, then it is necessarily true that he has acted without cause or reason. In other words, whatever you think the first action was, it just happened, and there is no explanation possible or necessary. Given that, upon what grounds can you rule out what it can and cannot be? How can you say that it's not possible for a compressed point of energy to have rapidly expanded with no cause whatsoever? And if you think it's a problem, I can just as easily turn the problem back around on you. What do you think God's first action was? Deciding to create the universe? If it's a problem for a universe to "just happen" then it's also a problem for your god's actions to "just happen."

Now you tried to refrain from painting yourself into this corner by stating...

the uncreated Creator exists outside of time

I have heard this claim more times than I can count. Lately, I've taken to ask a very simple question in regards to such a claim. The question is not the slightest bit unfair, and yet, I have never heard anyone even begin to answer it. So Pature, I wish you luck:

Could you please define "outside of time?"

[Parture]

So apparently you're accepting my definition of time, because you're saying that it proves that atheism is false. You can't go that route while rejecting my definition, because then you'd have no argument.

I gave the argument. You didn't deal with it, so I will wait for you to deal with it.

Given time as I have defined it, we can also define what an infinite expanse of time would look like. If you try to define it in terms of numbers, you're going to fail, because infinity is not a number. Take any given situation. We'll call it x. We can ask ourselves, does a situation precede x? The answer is either yes or no. If there is, then we will ask the same question in regards to that question. And so on and so on. From this, we can extrapolate a dichotomous position. Either we will eventually answer "No, there is no situation before this one," or we will never hit that point. You shouldn't reject this either-or position, because this confirms the very same dichotomy you were attempting to establish on the show. And this is where you and I agree. I think Martin was wrong to call this a false dichotomy.

You're a babbletalker. You babble. A false dichotomy is when someone says there is option 1 and option 2, but since option 1 is false, therefore option 2 has to be true, all the while overlooking option 3 that is clearly available to consider. Anyway, there is no dichotomous position. Since nature always needs a cause, infinite regress would be false because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And that's final. Since nature can't always have existed it must be true that which is outside of nature is the cause. Case closed.

So this is where things start to get incomprehensible on your part. You are attempting to show that there cannot be an infinite regress because...

This makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "we would have happened?" What do you mean "already?" Already from what perspective? You're not really proving anything, here. You're asserting incoherent stuff to prove your point. Now, if you could illustrate to me how an infinite regress is necessarily incoherent, then I would agree.

Sorta have troubles responding to zombie talk when the zombie doesn't understand when something already happened or would have already happened under a certain condition, i.e. an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Can I have your IQ and EQ please?

Seeing as how we are left with two options, either an infinite regression of past events, or some point in time in which there is no situation which precedes it, you're arguing against the former, so I will take it you accept the latter. You've still got some problems to reconcile. Namely, if you believe that God is the prime mover, then it is necessarily true that he has acted without cause or reason. In other words, whatever you think the first action was, it just happened, and there is no explanation possible or necessary. Given that, upon what grounds can you rule out what it can and cannot be? How can you say that it's not possible for whatever existed at the time to have rapidly expanded with no cause whatsoever? And if you think it's a problem, I can just as easily turn the problem back around on you? What do you think God's first action was? Deciding to create the universe? If it's a problem for a natural universe to "just happen" then it's also a problem for your god's actions to "just happen."

God is Spirit. We don't know the elements of Spirit, only that Spirit has the functions of communion, conscience and intuition, so when God creates He does so by these functions, these very functions we have also in our spirit. However much you like or dislike the uncreated Creator's decision, process or work of creation, you can't challenge it because He is the greatest of all. God's prerogative is His alone. Since all He does is perfect you can trust in it. You certainly can ask some questions but when some answers aren't forthcoming that doesn't infringe upon the fact of His Almighty nature. So while the universe can come from God it can't come from nothing, because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.

Now you tried to refrain from painting yourself into this corner by stating...

I have heard this claim more times than I can count. Lately, I've taken to ask a very simple question in regards to such a claim. The question is not the slightest bit unfair, and yet, I have never heard anyone even begin to answer it. So Pature, I wish you luck:

Could you please define "outside of time?"

This is the beginning of humility to accept the uncreated Creator outside time and space. Outside time and space defined: not in space and not in time.

I wonder how many brain cells I just lost talking to an atheist?

[Tyler Overman]

If you'd like to do your side of the argument a favor, you could try making a post addressed to me without bringing in an ad hominem argument. That would be a verifiable miracle.

You're a babbletalker. You babble. A false dichotomy is when someone says there is option 1 and option 2, but since option 1 is false, therefore option 2 has to be true, all the while overlooking option 3 that is clearly available to consider. Anyway, there is no dichotomous position. Since nature always needs a cause, infinite regress would be false because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And that's final. Since nature can't always have existed it must be true that which is outside of nature is the cause. Case closed.

This is not what a false dichotomy is. You're close, but not quite.

The false dichotomy fallacy is a fallacy in which an option is unfairly excluded. It is not a formal fallacy, so your formal analysis is superfluous.

I don't really see why you're trying to argue with me on this one. You're trying to make an argument known as the disjunctive syllogism, which is a valid one. So here's your argument:

1. Either the universe is eternally existent, or the universe had a beginning.
2. The universe is not eternally existent.
C. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

The form of your argument is fine, and I accept premise 1 as true. But you're not giving me any reason to accept premise 2. Why should I?

God is Spirit. We don't know the elements of Spirit, only that Spirit has the functions of communion, conscience and intuition, so when God creates He does so by these functions, these very functions we have also in our spirit. However much you like or dislike the uncreated Creator's decision, process or work of creation, you can't challenge it because He is the greatest of all. God's prerogative is His alone. Since all He does is perfect you can trust in it. You certainly can ask some questions but when some answers aren't forthcoming that doesn't infringe upon the fact of His Almighty nature. So while the universe can come from God it can't come from nothing, because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.

The only part of this section that was anything resembling an argument was the part where you said "that which doesn't exist can't cause anything." I agree with this point, and I should have made it more clear in the past that this is not a position that I am advocating.

This is the beginning of humility to accept the uncreated Creator outside time and space. Outside time and space defined: not in space and not in time.

That's not a definition. Time is not a room. You can't step out of it.

You might be arguing that time is not a thing which applies to god, but this would be disproved by the bible itself, so I don't think you're going that route.

[Parture]

If you'd like to do your side of the argument a favor, you could try making a post addressed to me without bringing in an ad hominem argument. That would be a verifiable miracle.

It's not an ad hominem. Rather the reason you are going to Hell is proven as a consequence of the proof and your desire to be eternally separated from God. That's what you want. Why be offended? The resurrection of Jesus was verified.

This is not what a false dichotomy is. You're close, but not quite.

Wikipedia disagrees with you: "The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options." You're not too bright are you?

The false dichotomy fallacy is a fallacy in which an option is unfairly excluded. It is not a formal fallacy, so your formal analysis is superfluous.

I don't remember saying anything about formality.

I don't really see why you're trying to argue with me on this one. You're trying to make an argument known as the disjunctive syllogism, which is a valid one. So here's your argument:

1. Either the universe is eternally existent, or the universe had a beginning.
2. The universe is not eternally existent.
C. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Where did I argue with you? I stated what the logical fallacy is, and you disagreed with me and Wiki. You are disagreeing with us and arguing even though you are wrong.

Actually that is not my argument you made up. Rather, since nature always has a cause, but can't always have existed because you would have happened already, so nature shows us the uncreated Creator who creates outside of time and space. This is not a matter of selecting options, but one observable evidential fact leads to the next to know atheism is a lie of the Devil. What's the problem? Why be upset you are going to Hell? That's what you want.

The form of your argument is fine, and I accept premise 1 as true. But you're not giving me any reason to accept premise 2. Why should I?

I just told you. Wake up! You are starting from premises, I am just letting the evidence guide me where it may. You should do the same if you know what's good for you.

The only part of this section that was anything resembling an argument was the part where you said "that which doesn't exist can't cause anything." I agree with this point, and I should have made it more clear in the past that this is not a position that I am advocating.

I am glad you are not advocating something can come from nothing, and I am glad you agree that the universe can't always have existed. That's why Russell Glasser was no longer arguing whether God exists but who God was. He moved on past Martin Wagner's position of mindlessness.

Here is the argument again for the umpteenth time:
1) Nature always has a cause as evidenced by trillions of causes and no hard evidence otherwise, plus it's goofy something could come from nothing, for that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist.
2) This necessarily requires an infinite regress of cause and effects, yet this is impossible because we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so...
3) There necessarily must exist outside of nature, time and space, the cause to the universe.
4) That cause is uncreated because it is timeless, and intelligent, because the Creator can't be less than the created.
5) Who is He? God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ. Amen.

That's not a definition. Time is not a room. You can't step out of it.

You might be arguing that time is not a thing which applies to god, but this would be disproved by the bible itself, so I don't think you're going that route.

That is the definition, I never said it was a room, and though I can't step out of time, God can because as was shown above the uncreated Creator exists outside of time and space. It stands to reason He can enter His creation and exit as He wishes. The 66 books of the Bible are God's word to us.

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches God is restricted by time outside of His creation. You realize you're going to Hell right? Jesus said you are "condemned already" (John 3.18). I'm on team Jesus. You are on team Satan. You are the bad guy.

All I ask is one thing from you. Stop being so dumb around me. Think and rethink what you type. Stop being so impetuous.

[Tyler Overman]

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:

Here is the argument again for the umpteenth time:
1) Nature always has a cause as evidenced by trillions of causes and no hard evidence otherwise, plus it's goofy something could come from nothing, for that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist.
2) This necessarily requires an infinite regress of cause and effects, yet this is impossible because we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so...
3) There necessarily must exist outside of nature, time and space, the cause to the universe.
4) That cause is uncreated because it is timeless, and intelligent, because the Creator can't be less than the created.
5) Who is He? God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ. Amen.

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.

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.

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.