The Atheist Experience TV Show

[Parture]

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!

Notice how Wagner required there be a naturalistic explanation. Do you see that? He said, "You guys don't have a natural answer..." Of course we don't because the evidence shows us that nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. Why would I need a naturalistic explanation? That makes no sense. That is what you are trying to propose, not me.

Wagner says, "You are asserting the existence of a magical God". Not at all. Magic we know has a naturalistic explanation. There is the necessity of the uncreated Creator outside of nature based on the evidence no other option exists since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. This is whom we call God. Very simple.

Since there is no other option by this well founded evidence it cannot be an argument from ignorance, but it is an argument from ignorance and special pleading to say the universe always existed or started up all by itself when the evidence that we do have is contrary to that position. Why the doublestandard in labeling argument from ignorance when that is your position without evidence? Shutting your mind down to this fact doesn't make it go away. When all known possibilities are impossible, it is what you, yes you, thought to be impossible that must be the truth -- the uncreated Creator outside of time and space that our puny brains have troubles grasping. This is the beginning of humility. There is no humility in claiming you have to wait to know all things to know for sure since the evidence is already in. Besides you can never know that much anyway, so get off the pot. Always waiting to discover the next caused cause apart from God is dishonest and unethical. Never met an ethical atheist. That's false humility and people see it every time you open your mouth even though you can't see it.

Russell Glasser asked how can I go from the uncreated Creator to the the resurrection of Jesus? Easily, since this is the best proof of who the uncreated Creator is. Resurrection cannot occur naturally, so it was supernatural. Since there are only two options, supernatural and natural, and the natural is shown to be impossible, then the supernatural must be it. No false dilemma.

Take a simple example. Assuming no magic trick. If you have 3 cups and one marble is hidden under one of those 3 cups, then you turn over two of those cups but no marble is seen. You are not being ignorant by saying the marble is under the third cup since no other option exists. But you are being ignorant and pretentious if you say there is some other explanation. Likewise, since all known naturalistic explanations are fully exhausted and accounted for for the explanation of the universe, we are left with no other option than the uncreated Creator who, of course, reveals to us only what He wants to reveal, no more and no less.

The argument from ignorance is not the approach being taken by theists for it is the evidence that leads us to this conclusion of the necessity for the uncreated Creator. We go with the evidence. The argument of ignorance is displayed in the position of claiming one is atheistic though since you can't be atheistic on the sole reason because of your opinion there is no God and no argument against such a wild claim. Atheism is the argument of ignorance. People who are in a false position will often project by accusation onto others that fallacy they themselves possess. For the atheist to escape their own argument from ignorance they would have to find a naturalistic explanation for the universe, but none have been forthcoming.

For false dichotomy to be true of the theist, the atheist would have to show some other option could be viable but you don't. So do you see how you are misusing these logical fallacies? You're inserting your own assumption into them that are unsupported and shown to be false, since you don't need a billion years more to know nature can't always have existed, that no other option exists, and nature can't come from nothing. Bottom line: no evidence for atheism but definitely evidence for the uncreated Creator. Let's go with the evidence.

For false dichotomy to not be true of the atheist, the atheist would have to show some other option exists than the uncreated Creator as well as tear down the evidence for the uncreated Creator that has been given. But since you can't do that, you would have to actually find a a third option to infinite regress and something from nothing in nature. No such third option exists not even in your fantasies.

Think of it this way. You really can't ask for better evidence than the fact nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing. See if you can. I assure you that you can't. Hence, Romans 1.20 is our guiding principle in this debate,

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).

Praise the Lord, you're leading people to Christ because you can't overturn this evidence for the uncreated Creator (God) and that none can compare to Christ. Very simply, since God's standards can't be less than ours then it follows He must be personal and accessible. Since the weird god Russell Glasser proposes fails to compare with Christ, Jesus trumps your silly god. Since Jesus has this quality of being personal and accessible, and you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs (which should be relatively easy to do since this isn't rocket science) which you don't even try in our discourse then the debate is over.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for strengthening my faith. This continues to prove the Biblical teaching of once-saved-always-saved (sadly William Lane Craig is a non-OSASer like the adherents of the Roman Church and larger part of Christendom), not that it had to be in experience, but because once you are made in God's image, and that is proven by what Jesus did for us on the cross, His resurrection and ascension, how can God's image ever cease to exist? Think how evil it would be of God to create you, give you a spirit of God-consciousness, yet you know you would cease to exist. What love is that? Surely God can do better than that.

So those like my two debaters will be going to Hell because deep down inside in their heart of hearts they want to be eternally separated from their Creator. How truly sad for them, for they know not what they do. As the Bible says they are "condemned already" (John 3.18).

But "we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8.28).

And "as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him'" (1 Cor. 2.9).

I almost forgot to mention Glasser and Wagner were disagreeing with each other. Wagner was still contending for no uncreated Creator while Glasser (an atheist) conceded the uncreated Creator. And really what do spectral evidence and the Salem Witch Trials that Glasser mentioned have to do with what we were talking about? Individual hallucinations are not the issue but group hallucinations which modern psychology says are impossible according to their latest DM-4 manual. And where did the quote I gave from Simon Greenleaf have anything to do with the Salem Witch Trials over a century before Greenleaf's time? Glasser and Wagner must have been tired from arguing so long they were getting a little crazy. I tried to get Glasser off that tangent. You can't tell me the center of the truth of all things falls upon some vague reference to Salem and spectral evidence. I don't even know what his argument was because he never said what it was. All he said was spectral evidence and Salem Witch Trials like Wagner asserted false dilemma, argument from ignorance and appeal to authority without actually showing it. When you quote an authority it is not the authority you are appealing to but his reasoning given. These guys think I am not a mind reader, but I am not, and secondary issues are irrelevant anyway to the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach.

Part of the program was talking about what are the soul and spirit? Before you try to argue against them, figure out what they are first,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm

Very simply your spirit is in your innerman and your soul and body comprise your outerman. Your spirit has God-consciousness with the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. Your soul has the functions of mind, will and emotion and produce self-consciousness. Your body with its five senses give us world-consciousness. It's like a computer in a way. When you turn your computer off the spirit of it in 1's and 0's are saved, but when you turn it on the software works like one being raised from the dead so the soul becomes enlivened. Easy enough for us. How much more easy for God!

[Parture]

AtheistExperience
Re: http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistExperience?blend=2&ob=1

Hi,

I hope your realize that this is a fan channel. If you wanted to contact the ACA, you will have to send an e-mail to tv@atheist-experience.org (preferably with AETV in the subject line). I am just a fan of the show with a YouTube channel, but I'll try to respond to your message.

- "The reason I know atheism is wrong..."

Atheism is not an ideology, and it doesn't make any assertions, so it can't be wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods (for lack of convincing evidence).

Of course atheism is an ideology. It means something, not nothing, that's an idea. It does make assertions, that God does not exist, but since God is proven, therefore atheism is false. Atheism is the word in the English language to say there is no God whether you think you have evidence or not for your opinion. A lack of belief for or against God is called agnosticism. You're confusing terms. I realize the trend these last many years due to atheists being embarrassed in their stance but still want to be atheists are trying to change the meaning of atheism to agnosticism so they can still keep calling themselves atheists, but what that reveals to me about you guys is your conscience is speaking but you are not listening to it.

- "obviously something can't come from nothing"

Well... maybe that is not so obvious. I am not a quantum physicist, so I can't explain it in detail, but Stephen Hawking and a co-writer recently published a new book that explains how our universe (and possibly other universes) could have appeared out of seemingly nothing. Apparently "nothing" is an unstable state that automatically has to become something else; not because a God has a specific intention with that, but just because the laws of nature and quantum mechanics make it do that.

You're confusing that which looks like nothing but is still something with actually nothing that which does not exist. Since the universe can't come from the latter nothing nor always have existed then the ultimate cause is the uncreated Creator if you want to be logical about it.

Again, I am not an expert on this, and I find it hard to visualize such things, but at the quantum level particles just seem to pop in and out of existence, so "something out of nothing" seems to be happening all the time. If you are interested in a lecture about the current scientific ideas, you can watch "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

That's a very popular video being passed around. I have seen it many times before and watched it all once. Just because you don't know the cause to why those particles come into your viewing range is no reason to think they come into existence from nothing. That's quackery. Scientists don't close up shop at that point and say there is no more cause to be found. How silly. There are trillions of causes in nature and no reason to think something comes from nothing. Actually that video gets really weird. Krauss tries to postulate the universe is nothing and comes from nothing because he says all things balance out to zero. That's just one big fat assumption and a contradiction since the universe would not exist if it was nothing.

- "if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, there would have been an eternity to do so, so it would have happened already. Yet here we are."

It's 3:30 a.m. for me, yet here I am, but I'm a little bit tired, so I'll just assume that this is a "first cause" argument that might have been used by William Lane Craig, and that is probably already refuted somewhere else. I think that TruthfulChristian2 or someone like that also made a video with a similar argument. There was also a response video which showed why that argument was wrong. I don't remember where I saw that, but I remember that the argument was wrong.

Blah Blah blah. Probably already refuted somewhere else? If you can't show it, then you are just assuming.

- "Therefore, since no other naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, we are left inextricably with the necessity of the uncreated Creator."

This seems to be an argument from ignorance. You are basically saying, "you don't have another explanation, so my explanation must be right," and "we don't know what else it could be, so let's call it God or the Creator." That is all very nice, but that still doesn't prove that Atheism or not believing in any gods is wrong, because even if there is such a Creator, we still don't know who Creator is and what He wants, if anything.

Since it can't be natural, it is supernatural. No other option exists, and you don't need to wait for eternity to find out, otherwise arrogantly you are claiming you have to be like God all-knowing to know. Obviously you will never be all-knowing. That there is no other option is not an argument from ignorance since it is evidenced in the fact that it can't be natural. Argument from ignorance is claiming what I am telling you is true because you can't disprove it. That is not the approach I take. The reason the uncreated Creator exists is because of the evidence nature can't always have existed or come from nothing. And since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs that is so well testified, then this proves who the supernatural uncreated Creator is.

You may say that the Creator is the Christian god God, but the Muslims can say that it's Allah, the Hindus can say that it's Brahma, and the ancient Egyptians could have said that it was Amun, or whatever. Pantheists might say that that Creator only created the universe and then left it alone. You could even imagine a creative goddess who died in the process of giving birth to our universe, or universe-creating pixies.

You're encouraged to compare claims on who the uncreated Creator is for which one will come forth triumphant. You know Islam is wrong not only because it has no evidence for its god like we have for God of the Bible by the resurrection proof, but also because it falsifies itself since the Koran teaches Jesus never died on the cross nor was even taken to the cross. Making this claim six centuries later is absurd and contrary to all the evidence we do have in the first century. Hinduism's Brahma is false because it is an amoral god. How can the Creator have morals below our own? As to other gods, compare them one by one, and you will see not only are they not well testified, but they are unprovable, since you don't receive any hard data like we have from the eyewitness testimonies in various group settings and a strong religio-historical context of 40 authors over 1500 years in agreement to produce 66 inspired books. An impersonal absentee landlord is evil, so God who personally enters His creation and makes Himself accessible is better. for God's morality can't fall below His created beings. Imagining things is not a valid approach. It is the evidence that in all Paul's travels in setting up the churches with other Apostles that his foundation was real in what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, so these are clearly Paul's words, testimony and genuine beliefs. Read those 3 chapters by Paul.

The ancient Egyptians believed that the first god felt so lonely that he created everything by masturbating and then impregnating his own self-created mother in order to be reborn as his own son... or something like that. (Don't try this at home!)

You can make the story as crazy as you want, because even if you assume that there had to be a Creator, you still can't make the link from that Creator to a specific god and a specific religion. Even if there was such a Creator, how do we know what He/She/It wants from us?

And how do we know that He/She/It is still present in our universe? Why should such a god even want to be inside of this universe anyway, if He/She/It could also live without it? Let's think of the Creator as a watchmaker, and let's think of our universe as a carefully designed watch? Why would the designer crawl inside of that watch and check every cogwheel, if He could also wind it up, put it away and just let it tick?

So, to make a long story short, even it there is an "uncreated Creator," we still don't know who that is, or what the Creator wants from us, if anything. What are that Creator's intentions? Does the Creator even have intentions, or could the Creator be a blind and spastic child that accidentally makes things? There are so many possibilities that the idea of a Creator still doesn't explain much. Why should we worship and pray to that Creator, if He/She/It may not even care about us? And how do we know all that?

That is crazy I agree that God could feel lonely since that is inadequacy, so since we both agree it is crazy and certainly not evidenced at all, it can hardly compare to the multiple eyewitness testimony of the original disciples having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. It's really quite simple when you get down to it. The Creator would be accessible so that leaves only Christianity, not even Islam or Hinduism. The rest are minuscule in comparison. Since Islam and Hinduism are shown to be false, then that leaves Christianity only. Even if you didn't know anything about it, you know it would have to be true since no other option exists.

How do we know what God wants from us? He reveals it to us in His word, the 66 books of the Bible.

The uncreated Creator is always existing. We know He is omnipresent, able to touch all points at any time in the universe because He exists outside of time. Why does God want to enter His creation? Because He loves us and does not want us to go to Hell like you have your heart set on. So He died on the cross for the sins of the world to save whosoever is willing. God expresses His glory and does so in a perfect creation. God is relational in His Triune Being, so making us in His image is for Him to have fellowship with. Surely that gives God more glory than God doing nothing. God would be perfect in all He does always. Always righteous, holy and true. Since God cares about us as evident by what Jesus did for us on the cross, then He is worthy of your praise and worship.

Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Christ, pp. 266-267 So what? What difference does this make? There are several obvious implications.
1) If Jesus is the Son of God, his teachings are more than just good ideas from a wise teacher; they are divine insights on which I can confidently build my life.
2) If Jesus sets the standard of morality, I can now have an unwavering foundation for my choices and decisions, rather than basing them on the ever-shifting of expediency and self-centeredness.
3) If Jesus did rise from the dead, he's still alive today and available for me to encounter on a personal basis.
4) If Jesus conquered death, he can open the door to eternal life for me, too.
5) If Jesus has divine power, he has the supernatural ability to guide me and help me and transform me as I follow him.
6) If Jesus personally knows the pain of loss and suffering, he can comfort and encourage me in the midst of the turbulence that he himself warned is inevitable in a world corrupted by sin.
7) If Jesus loves me as he says, he has my best interest at heart. That means I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by committing myself to him and his purposes.
8) If Jesus is who he claims to be (and remember, no leader of any other major religion has ever pretended to be God), as my Creator he rightfully deserves my allegiance, obedience, and worship.

[Parture]

Leading Martin Wagner to Christ,

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9708948

or




Continue the discussion here if you like,

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/

I would join in the discussion further, but Martin Wagner banned me from further discussion on his site, cornering himself into a little box, so you are welcome to talk here with me if you like. I would be happy to repeat the proof to you for God and who God is and why all attempts to disprove these proofs are erroneous.

"TheAtheistExperience" also cut and pasted just my call-in on Youtube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXkc7ToYsTI

Though I am probably still banned from their highly censored and childish blog, this is something to think about genuinely if you can muster the strength to do so. Think of the copout you are engaged in. Wagner, you're saying it is argument from ignorance because we say no other option exists than the uncreated Creator, but you could always use this argument if you assume there could be some other explanation. But that is beyond reasonability. Think about it. If you have 3 cups with one marble hidden under one of them, you lift up 2 cups, assuming no simple magical trick, the marble must be under cup 3. To assume some other naturalistic explanation is therefore stupid and dishonest with yourself. You're special pleading, committing the fallacy from ignorance and false dilemma. Why is it ok for you to commit these sins? So in reality there really is only two options for the explanation of existence of this universe and us in it. ONLY one can be true. If there is a third option and this is a false dilemma then you should produce the 3rd option or get off the pot. Those two options are uncreated Creator or infinite regress. That's how nature always works with cause and effect (trillions of causes to prove it-overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt-and no hard evidence for something in nature from nothing) so there is infinite regress or creation by the uncreated Creator who proves Himself even further by what Jesus did and the multiple eyewitness testimony for seeing Jesus up close and personal in various group settings. All possible naturalist explanations have been exhausted so, Jesus really resurrected and did so because only God could do this.

Since infinite regress cannot be true because we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, this necessitates that which is outside the universe is the cause of the universe. It is really quite bizarre and immoral to be an atheist, thinking there is no accountability. Oh but there is! Shutting your mind down doesn't may accountability disappear.

The cause that is outside of nature must be timeless, uncreated, spaceless, all-knowing, able to touch all points in time instantly, has a mind and is sentient, because the Creator can never have qualities lesser than His created beings. Amen.

Since a young child can understand this basic logic, we can conclude the reason why someone does not accept reasonable proven faith is because there is a hostility residing deep within them by the evil spirit indwelling their innerman that motivates them and they let take reign of their lives on the road to perdition.

Atheists are bad people through and through. The evil percolating among them is palpable like when they all head out to the restaurant together after gang banging each other.

[Thumper]

If the universe is infinite, from a temporal point of view, why is right now any more unlikely for us to exist that any other point in time? Why is your God correct and true while the other 2 Abrahamic religions are wrong?

[Parture]

If the universe is infinite, from a temporal point of view, why is right now any more unlikely for us to exist that any other point in time? Why is your God correct and true while the other 2 Abrahamic religions are wrong?

If there was an infinite regress to the universe 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. This is not about likelihood of probability as to when you would come into being, but literally you would have had to come into being prior to your actual existence since you would have had an eternity to do so. Where it gets really weird is this past eternity would continue on for eternity before you could come into being, so you should have never existed at all. These inherent contradictions that arise from a past eternity expose it as false. All kinds of mathematical inconsistencies arise from the fantasy of infinite regress. Hilbert's Hotel shows this better than any I think. And the thing is, once you start taking on one fantasy, then another, who knows where you will stop in your mistaken assumptions and overassuming. Your condition sinks further.

God of the Bible and His Plan the correct one for many reasons, the most important of which are, Judaism and Islam are works-based faiths, but that is illogical because 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. A person is a sinner and the only way to redeem that person back to God is through grace by faith so that God can begin working in him. It is highly arrogant to think a person can work his way into forgiveness.

Judaism ignores all the Messianic prophecies for their Messiah.

And the Koran claimed Jesus never died and never even went to the cross. There is nothing to support this six centuries later to overturn all the evidence that Jesus died by crucifixion. The evidence is just too overwhelming and so well documented, it is as sure a fact in history as any in antiquity.

[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.