The Atheist Experience TV Show

[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.

[Parture]

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.

[Tyler Overman]

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.

[Parture]

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.

[Tyler Overman]

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.

[Thumper]

“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?

[Parture]

“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.

[Parture]

@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.

[Faith is a fail]

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

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

I got that you made a classic argument from ignorance fallacy.