Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: The Atheist Experience TV Show

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Come join me in chat since I know you want to talk to me...

    http://biblocality.com/forums/irc.php

    I think we all like the way William Lane Craig speaks (as long as he is not talking about OSAS and non-OSAS) because he really is concise. He doesn't blather on like Christopher Hitchens, Shabir Ally and Richard Dawkins.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSN...ure=grec_index

  2. #32
    Faith is a fail Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    I am glad you can't show it.

  4. #34
    Faith is a fail Guest

    Default

    Of course I can just like it was explained to you when you called in to the atheist experience.

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

    "Appeal to Ignorance



    Alias:
    • Argument from Ignorance
    • Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
    Type: Informal Fallacy
    ...
    There is no evidence against p.

    Therefore, p."

    This specificly is the sentence where you commit that fallacy, where in p=the uncreated Creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Therefore, since no other naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, we are left inextricably with the necessity of the uncreated Creator.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    The reason for knowing Jesus was resurrected is because of the evidence, and that is why you can't find a naturalistic explanation as all naturalistic explanations have been exhausted. We are not asserting Jesus is God and that's all we say, but it is the evidence we give, and so the burden is on you.

    Do you see how you are misusing this fallacy?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    "Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise." (Simon Greenleaf)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Martin Wagner asks...

    1) Demonstrate that the Christian God is scientifically falsifiable concept.

    You can disprove God of the Bible by finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples. None exist of course.

    2) Explain how the realm in which you claim God exists -- that is "outside time and nature" -- functions, if not naturally and temporally.

    There is no realm, there is just the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. You don't need an explanation of the explanation.

    3) Explain how, even if God exists outside of time, he is able to perform the causal act of creation and not be caught in the infinite regress trap.

    Why would He be caught in your infinite regress trap since He is outside of time? Not knowing how God does some things, doesn't overturn the proof He did them.

    4) Demonstrate why this creator God is any more real than any other God of any other religion.

    The proof already supplied this to you, by the proof of the resurrection. Why be a clanging bell? You can also compare on many other levels to discover none can compare to Christ.

    5) Demonstrate how you discern that this creator God is real and not something you are just imagining.

    By the evidence given, nature cannot always have existed so there needs be the timeless and spaceless Creator and by the proof of the resurrection of Jesus.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    The desperations of Martin Wagner...

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    Since nature has been proven to always have a cause by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of trillions and trillions of cause and effects...
    False assertion, false premise. We know that uncaused events happen at the quantum level.
    There are no assertions or premises, but the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Your premise and assertion is false that nature is the uncaused event on the quantum level since you can find not uncaused cause of nature and you can't overturn this overwhelming preponderance of evidence. You don't like evidence so much do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    and no hard evidence something comes from nothing...
    Note the slight shift in wording here from before, to "no hard evidence." But even if this were true, to go from this to "It must be the Christian God" is the fallacy of the false dilemma.
    You need some hard evidence, so why are you being shifty? We don't jump to the Christian God, but since we know the uncreated Creator exists then we show why God of the Bible is the One True God. So no false dilemma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    this necessarily leads to an infinite regress, but you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so
    As people who actually — unlike you, Troy — have a background in mathematics have explained here, there is no mathematical basis to assume that infinity would mean this at all, and you have given no indication you understand what either mathematics or physics means when you talk about infinity.

    But once again, an infinite God would be subject to infinite regress too. Simply insisting God exists "outside time," without any clear explanation of what you mean by that phrase, is a special pleading fallacy. There's no way that you have offered to demonstrate that a realm "outside time" exists anywhere but in your confused mind.
    When you have an eternity to do something, it's an eternity, so indeed, that is exactly what it means: having had an eternity to have happened already, you would have done so if infinite regress were true. I don't know any mathematicians or scientists who would disagree, so why shut your mind down and make up stories?

    God is outside of time, so He is not subject to infinite regress. You don't need an explanation of the explanation, for once the uncreated Creator is proven, then you know He exists. Outside of time and space is not a realm. It is the uncreated Creator. God is not a realm, but a Being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    so therefore, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Pure and simple!
    What of quantum fluctuations, which occur at the subatomic level and are known to be uncaused? Don't bother trying to answer, because you don't know anything about these and so any dismissal of them will hardly be coming from a position of expertise in physics.
    There is no evidence the quantum level is uncaused. Since you have no evidence for this and are not smart enough to see the cause we always observe in nature, it seems quite pretentious and presumptuous to assume it happened all by itself like magic mindlessly. Why believe this fairy tale? Even Steven Hawking in his latest book concedes time had a beginning at the bottom of the badminton shoot or south pole, though he does not know what caused the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    Since nature can't always have existed, that which is outside of nature-time, space and matter-necessarily must be the cause. This is whom we call God.
    And as you've been told a trillion times, it's one thing to assert this as a hypothesis, but now you must provide evidence of such a realm and an understanding of this realm's properties. Additionally, why assume the cause is a "whom," and why call it "God"?
    It's not a hypothesis. Nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Since nature then needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, we know it is true. It is not a realm. All we can say at this point is it is the uncreated Creator. A realm can't create a mind, so the uncreated Creator must have a mind. How can the Creator be less than the created? Makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    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.
    Which is why we're not considering yours. Just sayin'.
    Historians don't work like you do. Otherwise nothing is true of history according to you. We can glean some facts from the Scriptures, and we do. Paul really set up the churches and had a basis for doing so, since he had a experience and met the disciples who also saw Jesus alive from the dead testified as being in various group settings under different conditions and with different people involved. Since no naturalistic explanation can account for it, we know it is true. All naturalistic explanations that have been attempted have failed. I love evidence, why don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    Forget about any claims where God is not intelligent, personal and accessible, for how can God's standards be lower than our own?
    Why forget these? You give no reasons other than to ask a question about "standards" that is an utter non sequitur when dealing with the basic question of whether this "God" entity exists and whether it created our universe. Until you can even refer to this creative source as "God," let alone begin discussing its "standards," you have some unfinished work to do.
    Absolutely, the Creator can't be less than the created. A bird house can never create a bird, so don't shut your mind down to this obvious fact. Since Jesus fulfills this condition, He is certainly in the running for the uncreated Creator. God simply means uncreated Creator. God is a more personal and easier way to say than always repeating uncreated Creator. The only accessible claims of God are Brahma for Hinduism, Allah for Islam and the Trinity of the Bible, but the first two are not personal, since they don't enter creation and interact with us, so they fail. They fail for many many other reasons, but I am just giving you a taste, since nobody finds God unless they search Him out with all their heart and soul. So it is questionable whether one should hand everything over to you on a silver platter or reveal to you my storehouse of spiritual wealth. At best all I should do is keep feeding you little bits and pieces here and there otherwise you will just grow harder and harder. You can't handle so much at once.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Any belief system that does not effectively address sin would be deficient.
    What has the concept of "sin" to do with anything here? Again, you have not provided any evidence at all to justify belief your God even exists, just a hypothetical assertion. You are far, far away from having any basis to discuss such tangential topics as "sin."
    Sin is the very problem of our being. Something so central should not be avoided. It's funny how you keep repeating no evidence was given for God existing when the evidence is given over and over, that being nature can't always have existed so there needs be a cause outside of nature, and of course, the proof of Jesus' resurrection proving He is God. Asserting God doesn't exist after He has been proven seems like a clanging bell to me, like a zombie for Satan. Sin leads to death. That's not a good thing. Since God exists and Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone, it also leads to the second death which is Hell where you are going. You tried to avoid this subject, but there it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    By holding out for the future there could be some evidence to prove God does not exist eventually requires that you be all-knowing but only God could be all-knowing.
    And this is what I meant by saying you're deeply confused at a very basic — like, Step One — level of epistemology. You're committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. We do not, in fact, have to hold out for evidence that your God does not exist, because you have never, and continue not to offer any whatsoever that he does. The burden of proof is entirely on your scrawny shoulders, and you've crumbled under the weight of it each time.
    You didn't show any confusion epistemologically. That's probably why you can only assert it but not show it. The proof is given, so there is no fallacy in placing the burden on you. In fact, you are committing this sin, because you don't address the proof. When you keep saying there is no evidence, this is not a valid response to the evidence given. You have to show why you think it is not evidence. So I am patient, waiting for you to deal with the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    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.
    Again, jumping again into Christian myth is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You haven't proven God exists yet, so it's hardly time to drag out Bible stories. You haven't yet left square one.
    Since the uncreated Creator is proven to exist, and you present no challenge to this, we move to the next step to show who God is in Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    Since all naturalistic explanations are impossible, then no naturalistic explanation can account for their testimony.
    Yes, there is one, and it's a nuke: They're simply stories. No reason to consider them factual.
    There is not only no evidence for Jesus being fictional, but he is the most documented person in antiquity, so if you throw Him out you got to throw out all of antiquity. I don't know any historians who are that belligerent. The Jews were not contending for His non-existence, but that someone stole the body from the tomb. Paul set up the churches with so many corroborating parties involved. The writings themselves give clear indication of being biographical, autobiographical, letters written to people, and prophetic. For example, Luke says he is reporting on what has developed surrounding Jesus Christ and the disciples. And these are very physical descriptions of people, places and archaeologically preserved with many artifacts. I pulled some quotes from Gary R. Habermas' book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, for additional reasons why fiction is simply not the genre here. There are virtually no scholars who think like you, obviously for very good reasons like the ones I cited.

    http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/bible_fictional.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Quote Originally Posted by Parture
    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. No atonement would be satisfactory unless it was God Himself. If a person is unwilling to come to the cross as a helpless sinner, they are saying they want to be eternally separated from God.
    And you wrap up in a flurry of standard-issue Sunday School preaching. Like I said, you're still on square one. Until you've proved God exists, none of these quaint Bible stories have any relevance to anything. There is nothing in any of what you have written that counts as evidence that the Bible is any kind of reliable source to be taken seriously as an accurate accounts of the events it describes, and there is plenty of evidence it cannot be taken as such. (All four Gospel accounts of the resurrection are inconsistent with each other, and even if they were not, there's no extra-Biblical or archaeological evidence to support its account of a three-day-old corpse returning to life than there is to support any of the myths of ancient Greece or Rome.) By citing the Bible as proof of the existence of the Biblical God, you're making a tautology.

    So there you are, Troy. Address the five points I asked you to, and you may yet move to square two. Until then, further attempts to just repeat the above claims and preaching will meet with the delete button.
    You don't need to have exact copies of the 4 Gospel accounts; they can have variance. In fact with variance that gives them more credibility instead of just copying them, because they are independent sources. You would have to show ancient myths are related to Jesus. None exist as to God Himself coming into the world and paying for our sins, then resurrecting to give eternal life. The mythical gods you want to compare are just gods coming down and having sex with female humans. God of the Bible doesn't do that. They are not real, for there can only be one uncreated Creator. There can't be any archaeological evidence for Jesus rising from the dead specifically the 3rd day, so to demand this is illogical. That doesn't impede on the fact the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive over 40 days after He was resurrected. There are no resurrection accounts in antiquity before Christ. The Bible is allowed to prove something. To say otherwise is a tautology. Otherwise, you could prove nothing from ancient texts. Again, no historian acts like that that I know of so you are on a tangent.

    You keep mentioning Sunday school. I never went to Sunday school. Nobody in my extended family is a Christian, and I got saved at the age of 33, January, 2001. Isn't it wonderful how God gives you people to help you.

    Since the uncreated Creator is proven because nature can't always have existed, your avoiding this is not a valid response. And since you couldn't overturn the proof of the resurrection of Jesus, again, avoiding this, is not a valid response.

    Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
    Very good, Troy, you took a stab at answering my five questions. See, that's all it took to be allowed back here. Thanks for finally addressing some points put to you instead of repeating your previous sermons. Now, let's have a look at your answers and see how they satisfy:

    1) You can disprove God of the Bible by finding a naturalistic explanataion for the origin of the disciples. None exist of course.

    Excuse me? This is strange, but... the origin of the disciples? You're preferring to the dozen guys in Jesus's posse? That's all it takes to disprove the God of the Bible?

    Okay, Troy, I'll take you at your word on that. I suspect that, like any other human beings, they had one male parent and one female parent each, who engaged in sexual relations, resulting nine months afterward in the birth of the baby who would grow up to become a disciple.

    As this would appear to be a perfectly acceptable natural explanation for the origin of the Bible, then by your own criteria, I guess we can consider the God of the Bible disproved.

    So, I think we're done here. Still, I'll go ahead and take a look at your other four answers to see if you get any extra credit.
    Perhaps you are misunderstanding. The origin of the disciples' beliefs was as to regard their testimony, what made them think they had seen Jesus alive from the dead? Since you are unable to come up with a naturalistic explanation as all possibilities have been exhausted, you are as well admitting Jesus is God.

    2) There is no realm, there is just the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. You don't need an explanation of the explanation.

    Well, yes Troy, we do. You see, that is how things are done in science. You may get an explanation of a certain phenomenon, but if the explanation itself raises questions, then you investigate it further to increase your knowledge. This is why the scientific method is a rational process and religious belief is an irrational one: science encourages the constant increase in knowledge, while religion seeks to shut knowledge down by saying "You don't need to know that."

    You have now proposed a God who lives outside of time and space, but who does not do so in any kind of realm (like an alternate universe of his own or anything). So now you have to explain, again, the nature of this being and how it can exist without a realm to exist in, and how it is possible to determine that this is actually a fact that can be known and not simply something you are making up. So far you are still not explaining how to distinguish that God exists in reality and not simply in your imagination. If you're still confused as to what I mean, then here's an example. Explain how there is any epistemological difference between the following sentences:

    "There is no realm, there is just the uncreated Creator outside of time and space."
    "There is no realm, there is just the lord Vishnu, in the great emptiness outside time and space."
    Perhaps you are misunderstanding again. I am not saying you don't need to know something, but rather, once the proof has been given that proves the existence of something, you don't need further explanation once you know it is true. You can keep asking questions, sure, but those questions do not infringe on what we know, that the uncreated Creator exists. You don't need to know, say, if God is a Quaternity or a Trinity to know He exists.

    I'll repeat the proof again. Since nature can't always have existed, then nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This timeless, spaceless (so no domain) cause is whom we call God. It is fully proven. Why keep avoiding this proof?

    Vishnu does not specify whether he is created or uncreated, nor does it say whether he created or didn't create. Let's use English. So what we have is the uncreated Creator. Start from there, then find out if Vishnu compares to Jesus. Elementary dear Watson.

    3) Why would He be caught in your infinite regress trap since He is outside of time?

    Okay, this is not an answer, this is a dodge. The question was, if time and space do not apply to God, then why would this God engage in a causal act such as creation in order to establish a temporal universe? This is not me setting an infinite regress trap, it is me pointing out the infinite regress trap you have set for your God by not noticing this little inconsistency in the mythology you're trying to sell.
    This is not a dodge. That which is outside of time is not subject to your infinite regress trap. Actually you don't even need to know the reason why He did it, since it is proven He did it. But to answer your question why He did it, it's clear through Jesus why He did it, because God is relational being a Trinity, and He surrounds Himself with His glory, creating this universe, to have fellowship with those He chose before the foundations of the world.

    What the Holy Spirit is revealing to me about you is that you have an idol called science rather than using science properly. Science proves things. It is not to be used to avoid things, such as once you know something is true, you don't then seek to disprove it, for it is proven. I guess academically you could try to throw around some attempted disproves, but it is still proven to be true. The Bible addresses this problem you have,

    'Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called' (1 Tim. 6.20).

    Since Jesus was a real person, no mythology. You never mentioned any inconsistency. All you did was ask why would God create, and I told you. You still suffer from the infinite regress problem. It gets worse for you, for you know about Hilbert's Paradoxical Hotel. And if there was an infinite regress, there would be an eternity going on for eternity before ever reaching you, so you would have never come into being. Infinite regress is riff with contradictions. It shows you would not exist or would have happened already. That's crazy. You want people to believe in this nonsensical mythology? Thank God, God is not subject to this lunacy, since He is outside of time and space, and He has a will and prerogative to create. There could be someone at the year 13.7 billion years, another person at the year 100 billion years, and yet another person at the 1 trillion year mark. They could say they are at these marks in time according to God's prerogative and free will, but you can't say these things in your fantasy of infinite regress.

    4) The proof already supplied this to you, by the proof of the resurrection. Why be a clanging bell?

    The resurrection is not proved. There are only four accounts in a holy book, each of which conflicts in significant ways with the others. You don't seem to have gotten past the realization that you can't use the Bible's supernatural claims to prove themselves.
    Of course you can use the Bible, for these are their testimonies they said they saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross. We have a total of 27 books for the contemporary times. They do not conflict, you could find no conflict with them, so what have you got, but conjecture? Even if they did conflict a little here or a little there, it imposes no problem for their testimony they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Because you can find no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples beliefs, you prove God exists and Jesus is God. Praise the Lord! I don't know any historians who throw out the text completely like you do, so obviously you are the fringe. I was thinking of watching all 3 seasons of the Fringe. Take out your bias and come back to the table.

    5) By the evidence given, nature cannot always have existed so there needs be the timeless and spaceless Creator and by the proof of the resurrection of Jesus.

    But as has already been pointed out to you countless times on this thread, this is simply a bit of inductive reasoning you've been doing based on inaccurate premises. Still, even if we were to accept the premise that "nature cannot always have existed," it does not necessarily follow that the explanation has to be the Biblical God more than any other deity.
    There are no premises and the logic is valid. Just letting the evidence lead us where it may. We observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so we can be confident nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

    Now that we know the uncreated Creator is true, we can compare for any claims on the uncreated Creator. We know God reveals Himself since a personal God is better than an absentee landlord, for how can God's standards be less than our own? Since none can compare to Christ, we know the Christian God is the correct one. You testify this too yourself, since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. No other religion has such powerful proof. No other religion has a person who walks on earth with us, like Jesus did with the disciples for three years, and continually claim He is God.

    So yeah, it looks like you're still badly stuck on some epistemological basics. But at least you gave it a good try, I'll credit you that.
    Sorry, I have no epistemological problems. I am glad you couldn't show any but could only vaguely assert it. Thanks for your commendations. My prayer is that you confront this in a more honest fashion.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    He is indescribable and undeniable.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •