The Atheist Experience TV Show

[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.

[Parture]

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

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

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

[Parture]

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