Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: The Atheist Experience TV Show

  1. #21
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    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?"

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Overman View Post
    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?

  3. #23
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Overman View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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.

  7. #27
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    Alright. If you want to have your argument treated like real logic, then I will oblige. What I am going to do now is break down the first half of your argument to demonstrate how horribly flawed it is. The second half (Jesus is God) necessitates the truth of the first half (God exists). I am not interested in the historical issues surrounding Jesus. If you want to debate the divinity of Jesus, talk to a Jew.

    I will now analyze every sentence you have posted in regards to proof of God's existence. I will translate it into logical annotation, and then show why you are wrong. So here goes.

    Since nature has been proven to always have a cause by the overwhelming number of cause and effects...
    Here, you're saying that any thing that is within nature n must have a cause c.
    1. n c

    ... this necessarily leads to an infinite regress...
    So, c leads to an infinite regress i.
    2. c i

    but you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, so therefore, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Pure logic.
    Meaning, there is no infinite regress.
    3. ¬i

    Since nature can't always have existed, that which is outside of nature (time, matter and space) 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.
    Since nature is not eternal n(¬e), then there must exist a thing that we will call god g.
    4. n(¬e) → g

    So here's the entirety of the argument so far:

    1. n c
    2. c i
    3. ¬i
    4. n(¬e) → g

    Not a single one of these premises has any relation to another premise. There is no logic in your argument, only a series of unrelated claims. You have made no inference. You have made no deduction.

    If anything, premises 1, 2, and 3 would show, via the hypothetical syllogism and modus tollens, that there is nothing within nature, and I seriously don't think that's the route you were trying to go.

    Furthermore, I only accept premise 2 as true, and none of the others. You have not yet given me a reason to do so.

    To argue against me, you've got a few options:
    1. Show where I have unfairly annotated your argument.
    2. Demonstrate that you actually have made a conclusion (and I am more than willing to draw a truth table to illustrate that you have not)
    3. Refine this argument so that it is logical, or scrap it and get a new one.

    Again, if you have any questions in regards to anything I have said, I am willing to answer. I'm not engaging in this discussion for the sake of making you or anyone else look like a fool, so curiosity will not be met with scorn.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Since the historical record proves Jesus was resurrected and you can't overturn the record nor do you even care to try, then surely you will go to Hell.

    Since none of these are premises, but they all follow one after another from the evidence, and you could not show otherwise, then it stands.

    What you would have to show is why you think one of these are assertions rather than flowing from the evidence. But since you cannot and never will, clearly you are wrong.

    Everything flows from the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt by trillions of causes in nature and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing. In a court of law the case is won.

    I don't want you to go to Hell, but what I have proven here is that you do want to go to Hell and since God gives you this choice, then you will go to Hell for all eternity.

    p.s. I would change your -> g to -> u. u stands for uncreated being outside time and space. Then add a 5. -> g since this is whom we call God. You could even add a 6. -> J for Jesus since the word of God proves Jesus is God. Hope that helps.

  9. #29
    Tyler Overman Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Since none of these are premises, but they all follow one after another from the evidence, and you could not show otherwise, then it stands.
    Earlier I made the accusation that you don't know what logic is. Now you are stating that you are drawing conclusions without premises. You have proven my point. Thank you.

    I have deconstructed the argument you have made, and demonstrated why it is trash. You have not presented a rebuttal. You have merely asserted (once again) that it proves god, without going into any more detail than that. That's not an argument.

    I think we're done here. You say that you want to prevent me from going to hell, and you are attempting to prove that god exists as a means to that end. I'm the kind of person that responds to logical inquiry, so for me, that's the route you will have to go. And there are many others like me. Whatever it is you are doing now does not stand up to scrutiny.

    So to help you in that regard, I am offering to purchase for you, at no cost whatsoever, this book. I promise it will help you come to a better understanding of argumentation. If you're up for the offer, just send me a PM with your details and we'll work something out.

    Have a fantastic day.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    No, I am not drawing conclusions from premises for I don't need to, since the evidence necessitates the conclusions and therefore no need of any premises.

    You're asserting, not showing. You're not being logical. I encourage you to engage the discussion by trying to show rather than assert.

    Vague references to books don't help you. The proof is on the table, so you would have to find fault with it specifically, but you don't.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Help for The Atheist Experience Show
    By Parture in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2016, 08:26 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-23-2016, 02:32 AM
  3. 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
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 09:31 AM

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
  •