The Atheist Experience TV Show

[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.

[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

[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.