The Atheist Experience TV Show [Archive]

Parture

09-18-2010, 07:40 PM

Martin Wagner - The Atheist Experience TV Show
Re: http://www.atheist-experience.com/ (http://www.atheist-experience.com/)

I said, "The reason I know atheism is wrong is because obviously something can't come from nothing (that which does not exist), nor can the universe always have existed, because 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. Therefore, since no other naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, we are left inextricably with the necessity of the uncreated Creator."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC4UAG2lVYQ

If you're so quick to reject an eternally existing universe, why are you okay with an eternally existing creator?

I didn't think I was being quick, but gave you the clear and solid reason that if there has been this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature (material and time), then we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. But the uncreated Creator exists outside of time (since He is uncreated) and brings time into existence, so this problem for a past eternity of nature wouldn't apply to the uncreated Creator.

Furthermore, the universe can't personally relate to me because it is just a bunch of atoms bouncing around. But the uncreated Creator personally reveals Himself to me through the Son of God Christ Jesus, and that's why I am ok with it.

Creation is a causal act, so the problem of infinite regress is not solved by proposing such a being. If God had an eternity in which to create the universe, then as you say, he'd have done it long before. There's no reason he'd have waited to do it 14 billion (or 6000, depending on what kind of creationist you are) years ago.
Indeed, your statement would be valid if God existed in nature (universe(s)), but He doesn't. Remember He exists outside of time and space of nature, so it is illogical to ask why He didn't create the universe a trillion years ago or 13.7 billion years ago. He is uncreated. We must reserve some knowledge for God that we could never know because He would be outside of time and space, infinitely greater than us, and we could never be God. This is the beginning of true humility.

So the very criticism you seek to undermine a naturalistic origin of the universe with ends up flattening your God for exactly the same reason. If you are like any of the other apologists who have tried offering us this one before, I suspect you will go on to invoke a special pleading fallacy to get God off the hook.

Anyway, I personally don't hold that something came from nothing. Thanks for writing.

Martin
So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead, contrary to the evidence supplied, for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator.

I am glad you don't hold something in nature or all of nature itself comes from nothing, so that means you can bypass Step 2 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Great logicians have said which I most firmly agree once you exhaust all known possibilities, it must be that what you previously considered impossible must be true -- the uncreated Creator. This is further substantiated by the fact you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and you can't show something lesser produces the greater such as merely bouncing atoms alone forming into sentient life. Since you can't scientifically reproduce it, you have failed in your quest. Holding out that you may one day so would be a pipe dream, even to the arrogant point of claiming there was last thing you didn't know could still prove the universe always existed. This is equivalent to saying you have to be God to know if God exists, but obviously you are not God. And it is contrary to the evidence already established if there was a eternity of the past of nature, we would have already happened by now having had an eternity to do so.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

Parture

09-18-2010, 08:06 PM

Don Baker
Re: http://www.atheist-community.org/ (http://www.atheist-community.org/)

The same message above to Martin Wagner was also sent to Don Baker, but Don Baker uses the opposite approach of claiming something in nature comes from nothing rather than an infinite regress.

Hello,

What if I claim I have a million dollars in my pocket? I dare you to prove that I don't. You don't know where I live and you don't have the ability to search my pocket. Does that make me rich? By your "logic", it does. You're saying, "if you can't disprove X, then X must be true". This is called an argument from ignorance and it's a well known logical fallacy. It's a bad argument, but that's par for the course with apologetics.

The time to believe in a god in when there is some real evidence for a god. Got any?

You might also do a little research on quantum mechanics, zero point energy, and the big bang. The beginning of the universe is not, as you say, creating something out of nothing. It's more like nothing changing form (and keeping the conservation of energy). But all this doesn't matter because the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim that there is a god. If you don't have any real evidence, I'll continue not believing, which is the CORRECT response to bullshit claims.

--Don

X = million dollars in your pocket.

If I can't disprove X then X must be true? That's not the approach I take at all.

Rather, not only can you not disprove God exists, but you can't overturn the evidence for why He exists and why atheism is false. He exists because the universe can't always have existed. The universe can't always have existed because we would have happened already having had an opportunity to do so.

I am standing on this other hill with an argument you have not addressed, while you stand on another hill arguing against an approach that someone else might take, but I do not. You did not address what I said to you.

That which is "nothing" doesn't exist. It is nothing. Nothing always is derived from nothing. Therefore, it can't change form into something. So the big bang and anything on the quantum level can't come from nothing, that which does not exist. That's like producing a rabbit out of a hat, a puff the magic dragon theory. Cute but fanciful.

Step 2 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God fully proves why something can't come from nothing,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Therefore, the universe was created out of something, adhering to the law of cause and effect. That cause would then be our only option left, the uncreated Creator who exists outside of time and space, no matter how unsettling this may be to your flesh and thus, accountability with consequences. God says we are accordingly "without excuse" (Rom. 1.20) if we deny His existence.

The burden of the proof lies on us both; I hold no such doublestandard and not treat others as I would like to be treated by saying the burden is only on them for what they propose. I have given you the reason which you haven't overturned the evidence for God and why atheism is false, but you haven't found ground for the burden that is on you that you posit no God or something coming from nothing. You would first have to show why God does not exist and then erect in its place how something can come from nothing as well as overturn the evidence why that cannot be possible. Unless and until you do so, you are deceiving yourself, others and actually leading people to Christ (saving souls from sin, self, Satan and Hell) because people can see you got no answer.

Parture

09-18-2010, 08:17 PM

It really is that simple so "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34). Great scientists have no greater opportunity of being saved than the dullest person out there. But they do have greater accountability with vaster knowledge.

Parture

09-19-2010, 12:27 PM

Hello Troy,

As I anticipated, you've rushed right into a textbook special pleading fallacy, claiming that God "exists outside of time and nature," but failing to give any evidence that there is such a realm for a God to inhabit. The short version of your response is, "God doesn't have to obey any rules, because he's a magic being living in a magic realm." If a realm "outside of time and nature" actually exists, where is it exactly? What properties does it possess, if not temporal or natural ones? How does God engage in a causal act (creation) within such a realm, and how does he manage to place his creation (the universe) outside of this realm?
You're avoiding the point, not adhereing to the rules of logic. Since there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature (for the reasons given) and something in nature can't come from nothing (for the reasons given), you're left with no other option than the uncreated Creator who necessarily then must exist outside time and space, so it is illogical to ask "...where is it exactly?" You even said it would be "outside of time and nature". That's where in a non-spacial sense only. You can't ask this question spatially because God exists outside of space. You are asking some other questions like how does God do this? I don't know. I am not God. All I know is it would be necessary since no other option exists, and it is unreasonable to demand how God does things always since only God would know all things.

The remainder of your argument consists solely of unsupported assertions, and there are a number of ironic moments when you undermine yourself. You say that God has revealed himself to you through Jesus. But then you go on to say that we must "reserve some knowledge for God that we could never know because He would be outside of time and space, infinitely greater than us, and we could never be God. This is the beginning of true humility." I'm always delighted to be lectured on "humility" by someone who thinks he's BFF with the creator of the universe.
Sorry I don't know what your acronym means that only you know (don't be selfish), but if you think what I said are unsupported assertions, you would have to show it, rather than just say it. Since the uncreated Creator is proven (I have received no argument against the proof (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach)) then it is reasonable to ask who He is or where does He reveal Himself to us? Since none can compare to Christ by the resurrection proof, and you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, though you may not concede openly Jesus is God, you are as well admitting that He is.

I hear Christians tell me all the time that God is just so super-awesome that there are things about him we can't know. I can't help noticing they always do this immediately after they have claimed a great deal of specific, "revealed" knowledge about God, and all I have done is press them for some details. It seems to me what's really going on here is they're leaving themselves a rhetorical back door to slip out of when the going gets rough, because the one thing they left out of their apologetics toolkit is anything resembling evidence. But hey, maybe I'm just not humble enough.
If you don't think it is evidence, then counter it. To repeat the evidence is as follows. Since nature can't always have existed and can't start up from nothing then there must exist the uncreated Creator even though we don't know how He does all things, nor is it reasonable to think we could for He would be infinitely greater than us; but we can look at the evidence to know that this is true.

Your last paragraph, I must say, is a mess. This passage — "So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead, contrary to the evidence supplied, for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator." — doesn't even make sense as good English. What exactly are you sayingg in the first clause? I have not made a special pleading fallacy. You have, by positing a God then insisting you don't have to explain him and that he gets to break all the rules. You then claim to have supplied "evidence," when in fact all you have done is repeat assertions.
I like this sentence because though it is grammatical correct it confounds you: "So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead, contrary to the evidence supplied, for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator."

Let me help you try to understand it: "So the very criticism you seek to undermine which you special plead for infinite regress of the universe doesn't apply to the uncreated Creator" because of the necessity of His existence outside time and space.

How is God breaking rules since He does not exist in nature? He is only breaking rules if He exists in nature. You have to show why you think the evidence is not evidence rather than just saying it is not. All I can do in response is repeat the evidence you keep avoiding.

The evidence, again, is that nature can't always have existed for we would have happened already in the backdrop of an alleged past eternity having had an eternity to do so. So we are left with no other possibility than the uncreated Creator must exist, no matter how hard that is to wrap your puny brain around. This is the beginning of humility. And we know who the Creator is by Christ because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, thus admitting Jesus is God though of course not openly as you maintain the course you are on to be eternally separated from your Creator. That's like rejecting your parents even though they don't deserve it. What love is that?

Look, I know you're trying, so I'll make this part easy. Assertions are not arguments, nor are they evidence, and it's hardly "humble" to think otherwise. Nor is there any humility in claiming to know things you do not know. I will admit that I don't have knowledge of the ultimate origins of the universe. The thing is, neither do you, yet you insist you do. But placing your ignorance on an altar and calling it God is not humble. Just sayin'. You think I'm being the arrogant one here, but I'm not claiming to have all the answers to the question of existence. I am simply saying I don't believe theistic or supernatural explanations. I am open to evidence. But it has to be better than bald assertions and rhetoric.
Oh yes, I do have the knowledge of the origins of the universe, and so do you even though you shut your mind down to it, because we all have a spirit of God-consciousness, inserted into us with the knowledge nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed; thus, there must exist the uncreated Creator. As the Bible says, simply by observing nature we know this to be true.

"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).

Here is where you get yourself into even more trouble when you claim you don't know the origin of the universe yet are atheist anyway, claiming God does not exist, which you have no evidence, nor able to counter the evidence against and for God. Talk about assertions! Why be doubleminded about this, applying rules to people you yourself don't have to adhere to? Why not treat others as you would like to be treated?

Surely you can't deny there is such a thing as false humility? This is what you exhibit because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, which shouldn't be too hard a thing to do after all this time, and you can't overturn the fact if the universe always existed, then we would have had an eternity to already be what we have become. That's the problem with your eternity theory. It is illogical.

What is at the center of our discussion is that you can't overturn these basic pieces of evidence, yet still remain an atheist. You're contradicting yourself. So one can fairly conclude it is because you have the same condition as Adam at the fall: independency and disobedience to your Creator that blocks off all fellowship with Him for that place called Hell which is devoid of God's presence as you wish.

Even if, for the sake of argument, I was willing to grant your basic point that maybe there is some kind of uncreated something "outside" of nature (though you have presented no evidence at all that any realm outside of nature exists) responsible for creating the universe, you still have not gotten yourself any closer to a proof that this thing is necessarily the Christian God, and not anything else. It could be some other god, or some creative force or "prime mover" that bears no resemblance to anything any person has yet conceived. But we just don't have any evidence — period.
Again, just saying the evidence given is not evidence is not a valid retort. You have to show it rather that spout it and assert it blindly. Again, the Christian God would be the correct one, because you can't find a naturalistic origin for the disciples' beliefs. Why do you keep avoiding this? Since a God who is personal and reveals Himself is surely better than one who does not, your deistic God would fail to compare to Christ. How can God's nature be lower than ours? How can His standard be below that of His creation? You're like a mindless zombie (repeating "we just don't have any evidence") when the evidence is given, but you don't challenge it.

God affords you this choice for the full gambit of choices afforded to man made in His image with free will. If you so choose to eternally separate yourself from God by never giving your life to Christ in this life, then so be it. How truly sad for you. How you decide to respond to Christ in this life determines where you spend eternity: as Jesus said, if you are not for Him, you most certainly are against Him. You have nobody to blame but yourself. It would be like those who have to spend their lives in jail, because society has deemed it unhealthy to ever let them out to harm people ever again. In like manner, you will spend eternity in Hell, so you can do no harm to God's people in the New City and New Earth. Praise the Lord! There is no greater love.

Just about all of the "first cause" arguments for God have been put through their paces, Troy, and you haven't brought anything new to the table this time. I think you are confused at a very basic epistemological level. Start by tackling this one: demonstrate how you are able to distinguish that your God is real and not simply something you're imagining. Once you get past that one, perhaps we can then talk about this God's universe-creating techniques. Best,

Martin

The evidence speaks loud and clear, so therefore, it is really true all things sum up in Christ; now you have to tackle with the fact your imaginary universe that always existed is just a lame attempt to reject God and is entirely fantasy. Show me where you have overturned the first cause argument I have shown you and provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Unless and until you do so, may you continue to lead more people to Christ by your failed attempts as they are turned off by your avoidance. You're still avoiding this, and because you do, you should question your own sanity.

Parture

09-19-2010, 02:16 PM

William Lane Craig shows the same thing: an infinite regress cannot exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8YN0fwo5J4&feature=grec_index

Parture

09-19-2010, 03:53 PM

Troy, you're still not getting it.

It's one thing to pose a God living "outside space and time" as a hypothesis. But you're going beyond the hypothetical, which means you need to provide stronger evidence for this being's existence apart from "there's no other choice". Setting aside the question of whether it is the only choice (and you have not demonstrated that either), the scientific method relies upon evidence, which is why it is not only not "unreasonable" to demand to know how this God supposedly creates universes from a realm "outside space and time," but essential to understanding what this God is that you're trying to propose at all.
You're not getting it. Think. There is no other option. That is a substantial result. You can't ask for a better proof. When all known possibilities are impossible it is what you deemed impossible that must be true. Think of it this way. You can't come up with a better proof either for the uncreated Creator. Nor can I. It's perfect.

Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there is no other option than the uncreated Creator no matter how much that unsettles you, leading to accountability and consequences for your life and how you choose to live it. To be an atheist is to deaden your conscience further to deny this accountability so you can get off on your sin and selfishness, delusionally denying the consequence that is administered by our Creator.

That there is no other choice leaves us with no other choice, that's why you can't find any. There is nothing wrong with asking the question, How does God do it? But if no answer is forthcoming, that does not impact detrimentally on the fact that He did it, since there is no other choice. You may want to keep holding out for the possibility that one day something could prove otherwise, but is that reasonable? Let's say there was one last thing you didn't know in the universe, would you still hold out that it could show the universe always existed or that God does exist? You effectively would be claiming you would have to be God to know if God exists. That's a contradiction though since obviously, you are not God and never will be all-knowing which can only be reserved for the uncreated Creator. Besides, you still have not challenged the evidence that there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for if there had been, then we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Don't let your thinking separate you from God. Your flesh, which includes your thinking, is utterly corruptible and needs to die on the cross with Christ to receive new thinking that is clear minded and healthy for you. You are overweight because of this sin: gluttony.

We know who God is by Christ, for none can compare to Christ, and you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Why still avoid this? Is that honest of you?

As it stands, you have provided no method by which anyone can determine whether or not this God you propose is real, or just something you're making up. I could just as easily, using the "logic" you're employing, make the following argument: "The universe cannot have existed eternally due to the problem of infinite regress, nor can something have come from nothing. Therefore, the only possible alternative is that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, a transcendent being outside of space and time. No other option exists, and it is unreasonable to ask questions about the nature of this being, as it exists outside of space and time."
See? It's really no different.
The proof was given which you were unable to overturn, since nature could not always exist, nor start up from nothing, so the only possibility that exists is the uncreated Creator. There is not some mysterious fourth option as yet unrevealed. That's a pipe dream. And illogical. It would violate the law of cause and effect. You're just making up infinite regress.

You are welcome to compare all possible uncreated Creators. But by doing so you are conceding the uncreated Creator exists, so the issue is not whether He exists, but who is He? Your "Great Green Arklesizure" fails the test since green is a product of nature, whereas you agreed the uncreated Creator is outsite time and space, and isn't the comical Arklesizure a comic of a Big Atom, but atoms are part of nature? Plus, your alleged deity is known by less than 1% of the population so it is inaccessible, whereas God of the Bible is accessible through Christ. Most have heard of God of the Bible. Accessible is better than inaccessible. Furthermore, Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection multiply attested in various groups settings and you still keep avoiding the burden that is on you to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. You lose anyway you go.

Comparing claims of who the uncreated Creator is is most welcome, but do come to the victorious one.

And just for future reference, before claiming any expertise on the rules of logic, check to make sure you still aren't throwing fallacies around left and right. You already had special pleading going, and now you're simply offering the argument from ignorance. "Because you do not have a naturalistic answer, God is the only alternative." Again, this is not how we determine facts about the universe. Not having an answer means not having an answer, it doesn't mean "I get to make up a magic being." This is called God of the Gaps, and it essentially demonstrates that God, conceptually, is little more than a placeholder for ignorance. Wherever we lack knowledge about how the universe actually functions, believers feel justified in spackling over that gap in knowledge with an all-purpose answer called "God". You don't seem to understand why that's epistemically incorrect.You didn't show any special pleading specifically nor any argument from ignorance, so why special plead this? Since that which is natural can't be the cause, then it must be that which is supernatural. There is no way around it. It is not a gap. It is a fact therefore the uncreated must exist and proves it by observing nature that it can't always have existed and there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. This is as good a proof as you can ask for. Your ignorance has locked you into not confronting this.

There are many things we don't know in the universe, but since the universe can't always have existed, it is unreasonble to keep asking what caused a natural event naturally without God at the helm. You don't seem to understand why your approach is epistimically incorrect. Your whole life has been one big lie, but you are so headlong into it, it will certainly take a miracle to be delivered from it. Usually what God does, not always but depending on the person, is to throw that person into some deep illness like cancer or suffer other profound tragic loss for them to have the opportunity to reconsider reality. Without it you would surely go to Hell without recourse considering your current condition. That's what cancer is one cell goes rogue and independent and replicates unnaturally. It is the same with you in your hostility to God.

Anyway, I decided to have a look at this 4-step proof of God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach) you insist hasn't been answered. A lot of it relies on flat errors of fact (quantum physics does reveal the existence of perfectly natural non-causal events at the subatomic level—they are called quantum vacuum fluctuations) or flawed premises. Steps 1 and 2 do not prove the existence of a supernatural realm, they simply assume it, in yet another logical fallacy called begging the question; that is, the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to prove. This 4-step "proof" is not even structured as a logical proof. It is simply another list of assertions.
We can't understand all things on the quantum level, so it seems a bit arrogant to take the most complicated things know to mankind and inject into them something happens from nothing in the backdrop of what we do know there are trillions and trillions of causes and effect in nature that is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially with no hard evidence something comes from nothing.

You've contradicted yourself by saying "perfectly natural-non-causal events". A non-causal event is coming into being without a cause, but when you say something "comes into being" that is itself causally linked, so it can't come into being without a cause. That's goofy! Why be a goofball? Coming from nothing is impossible (now you are arguing Don Baker's approach above) and contradicting yourself still further, because before you said you don't believe something can come from nothing: "Anyway, I personally don't hold that something came from nothing." You're a ball of contradictions, following after Satan the author of confusion. Do you think it will put more money in your pocket somehow? Nor would that be natural that that which does not exist (which is not natural) produces the natural. An 8 year old can see these simple points, not someone who is steeped in delusion. Nothing always comes from nothing. Don't be a goofball! Lame reasons to reject God are lame!

Don't just say that Step 1 & 2 don't prove the supernatural being, but show it. You must deal with the data and the argument presented to show why not. Just saying "no it's not" is not mature or a valid response. Likewise, don't just say it is not logical, but show it. Stop blowing smoke. Your assertions fail you because you can't show them by supplying some argument for them. Try to have the courtesy to deal with the information given to respond specifically.

The 4SMFA "proof" is even worse. Briefly I'll list the fallacies in each point. 1) Appeal to authority. 2) Begging the question. 3) Appeal to belief. 4) False dilemma (with a bit of Circumstantial Ad Hominem thrown in to berate anyone who disagrees for having insufficient humility). You can Google any of those if you don't know what they are.
Really, Troy, this stuff is just bad.

Here is the mistaken assumptions you are a making. It is not an appeal to authority but the reasons why most scholars concede Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, since he died for his eyewitness testimony, the church was founded on the the resurrection, and he set up many churches revealed in the epistles, so there is certainly a foundational cornerstone for this along with so many corroborating individuals in the New Testament sharing travels, testimony and time together.

As to begging the question, appeal to belief, false dilemma, those are fancy phrases but you were unable to apply them as you tried to remain as coy and vague as possible. You would need a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. None have been forthcoming. Your response would also have to be specific and not vague. Your coyness reveals your unethicalness.

So I'm afraid that, epistemologically, you're still in a state of profound confusion. You still seem to think I am failing to counter your "evidence," but you just do not understand that your assertions are not evidence. So far — and try to pay attention to this because it's really been eluding you — all you have done is make claims and assert that there is no other possibility than that they are true. And you are calling this "evidence." Until you comprehend this very basic problem in your arguments, I'm afraid there's not much further we can go with this.

Anyway, take care. I'm off to do the show.

MartinIf you think what I said was an assertion why don't you show? Why be evasive? You would need to find a naturalistic explanation not only for the universe, but also for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Perhaps you are taking on more than you can chew in life, following the busy buck around, not coming home to brass tax on this issue, for where is your specific response to these problems posed to you? All one can do is repeat the evidence as you keep avoiding it...

Since there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature for we would have had an eternity to become what we are, we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so; therefore, the uncreated Creator is the only option. No other option exists, none are forthcoming, and it is illogical to hold out to be all knowing to know if it is true, since you could never be all knowing. And we know who God is by Jesus since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. That leaves you dumbfounded why you still believe what you do.

PS: I'm not actually the only person who knows what BFF means. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bff
There are many abbreviations for BFF. I am not here to guess which one you are using. Like the Bible says, don't speak in tongues. Be considerate to others.

Parture

09-19-2010, 06:03 PM

Evidence is what matters. The Bible says "prove all things." The great evidentialist and lawyer of the 19th century Simon Greenleaf said, "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."

http://biblocality.com/forums/list.php?category/78-Simon-Greenleaf

Parture

09-19-2010, 06:20 PM

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9691385 (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 (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3652-Magic-proves-the-supernatural&highlight=magic). 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 (http://biblocality.com/forums/faq.php?faq=37questions#faq_question7) (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 (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/4stepproof.htm) and Minimal Facts Approach (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/4stepproof.htm). :biggrin:

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

09-20-2010, 01:21 AM

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

09-20-2010, 02:54 PM

Leading Martin Wagner to Christ,

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

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyMc7U256lA

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

09-22-2010, 10:49 AM

Parture

09-22-2010, 12:16 PM

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

09-22-2010, 03:05 PM

Tyler Overman

09-22-2010, 03:08 PM

Parture

09-22-2010, 03:39 PM

@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.

Parture

09-22-2010, 04:00 PM

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/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-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

09-22-2010, 04:30 PM

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.

Thumper

09-22-2010, 04:39 PM

Parture

09-22-2010, 05:33 PM

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.

Parture

09-22-2010, 05:49 PM

“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.

Tyler Overman

09-22-2010, 06:14 PM

So apparently you're accepting my definition of time, because you're saying that it proves that atheism is false. You can't go that route while rejecting my definition, because then you'd have no argument.

Given time as I have defined it, we can also define what an infinite expanse of time would look like. If you try to define it in terms of numbers, you're going to fail, because infinity is not a number. Take any given situation. We'll call it x. We can ask ourselves, does a situation precede x? The answer is either yes or no. If there is, then we will ask the same question in regards to that situation. And so on and so on. From this, we can extrapolate a dichotomous position. Either we will eventually answer "No, there is no situation before this one," or we will never hit that point. You shouldn't reject this either-or position, because this confirms the very same dichotomy you were attempting to establish on the show. And this is where you and I agree. I think Martin was wrong to call this a false dichotomy.

So this is where things start to get incomprehensible on your part. You are attempting to show that there cannot be an infinite regress because...

if there has been this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature (material and time), then we would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.This makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "we would have happened?" What do you mean "already?" Already from what perspective? You're not really proving anything, here. You're asserting incoherent stuff to prove your point. Now, if you could illustrate to me how an infinite regress is necessarily incoherent, then I would agree.

Seeing as how we are left with two options, either an infinite regression of past events, or some point in time in which there is no situation which precedes it, you're arguing against the former, so I will take it you accept the latter. You've still got some problems to reconcile. Namely, if you believe that God is the prime mover, then it is necessarily true that he has acted without cause or reason. In other words, whatever you think the first action was, it just happened, and there is no explanation possible or necessary. Given that, upon what grounds can you rule out what it can and cannot be? How can you say that it's not possible for a compressed point of energy to have rapidly expanded with no cause whatsoever? And if you think it's a problem, I can just as easily turn the problem back around on you. What do you think God's first action was? Deciding to create the universe? If it's a problem for a universe to "just happen" then it's also a problem for your god's actions to "just happen."

Now you tried to refrain from painting yourself into this corner by stating...

the uncreated Creator exists outside of timeI have heard this claim more times than I can count. Lately, I've taken to ask a very simple question in regards to such a claim. The question is not the slightest bit unfair, and yet, I have never heard anyone even begin to answer it. So Pature, I wish you luck:

Could you please define "outside of time?"

Parture

09-22-2010, 06:37 PM

So apparently you're accepting my definition of time, because you're saying that it proves that atheism is false. You can't go that route while rejecting my definition, because then you'd have no argument.
I gave the argument. You didn't deal with it, so I will wait for you to deal with it.

Given time as I have defined it, we can also define what an infinite expanse of time would look like. If you try to define it in terms of numbers, you're going to fail, because infinity is not a number. Take any given situation. We'll call it x. We can ask ourselves, does a situation precede x? The answer is either yes or no. If there is, then we will ask the same question in regards to that question. And so on and so on. From this, we can extrapolate a dichotomous position. Either we will eventually answer "No, there is no situation before this one," or we will never hit that point. You shouldn't reject this either-or position, because this confirms the very same dichotomy you were attempting to establish on the show. And this is where you and I agree. I think Martin was wrong to call this a false dichotomy.You're a babbletalker. You babble. A false dichotomy is when someone says there is option 1 and option 2, but since option 1 is false, therefore option 2 has to be true, all the while overlooking option 3 that is clearly available to consider. Anyway, there is no dichotomous position. Since nature always needs a cause, infinite regress would be false because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And that's final. Since nature can't always have existed it must be true that which is outside of nature is the cause. Case closed.

So this is where things start to get incomprehensible on your part. You are attempting to show that there cannot be an infinite regress because...

This makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean "we would have happened?" What do you mean "already?" Already from what perspective? You're not really proving anything, here. You're asserting incoherent stuff to prove your point. Now, if you could illustrate to me how an infinite regress is necessarily incoherent, then I would agree.Sorta have troubles responding to zombie talk when the zombie doesn't understand when something already happened or would have already happened under a certain condition, i.e. an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Can I have your IQ and EQ please?

Seeing as how we are left with two options, either an infinite regression of past events, or some point in time in which there is no situation which precedes it, you're arguing against the former, so I will take it you accept the latter. You've still got some problems to reconcile. Namely, if you believe that God is the prime mover, then it is necessarily true that he has acted without cause or reason. In other words, whatever you think the first action was, it just happened, and there is no explanation possible or necessary. Given that, upon what grounds can you rule out what it can and cannot be? How can you say that it's not possible for whatever existed at the time to have rapidly expanded with no cause whatsoever? And if you think it's a problem, I can just as easily turn the problem back around on you? What do you think God's first action was? Deciding to create the universe? If it's a problem for a natural universe to "just happen" then it's also a problem for your god's actions to "just happen."God is Spirit. We don't know the elements of Spirit, only that Spirit has the functions of communion, conscience and intuition, so when God creates He does so by these functions, these very functions we have also in our spirit. However much you like or dislike the uncreated Creator's decision, process or work of creation, you can't challenge it because He is the greatest of all. God's prerogative is His alone. Since all He does is perfect you can trust in it. You certainly can ask some questions but when some answers aren't forthcoming that doesn't infringe upon the fact of His Almighty nature. So while the universe can come from God it can't come from nothing, because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.

Now you tried to refrain from painting yourself into this corner by stating...

I have heard this claim more times than I can count. Lately, I've taken to ask a very simple question in regards to such a claim. The question is not the slightest bit unfair, and yet, I have never heard anyone even begin to answer it. So Pature, I wish you luck:

Could you please define "outside of time?"This is the beginning of humility to accept the uncreated Creator outside time and space. Outside time and space defined: not in space and not in time.

I wonder how many brain cells I just lost talking to an atheist?

Tyler Overman

09-22-2010, 07:48 PM

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.

You're a babbletalker. You babble. A false dichotomy is when someone says there is option 1 and option 2, but since option 1 is false, therefore option 2 has to be true, all the while overlooking option 3 that is clearly available to consider. Anyway, there is no dichotomous position. Since nature always needs a cause, infinite regress would be false because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And that's final. Since nature can't always have existed it must be true that which is outside of nature is the cause. Case closed. This is not what a false dichotomy is. You're close, but not quite.

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 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.

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?

God is Spirit. We don't know the elements of Spirit, only that Spirit has the functions of communion, conscience and intuition, so when God creates He does so by these functions, these very functions we have also in our spirit. However much you like or dislike the uncreated Creator's decision, process or work of creation, you can't challenge it because He is the greatest of all. God's prerogative is His alone. Since all He does is perfect you can trust in it. You certainly can ask some questions but when some answers aren't forthcoming that doesn't infringe upon the fact of His Almighty nature. So while the universe can come from God it can't come from nothing, because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. 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.

This is the beginning of humility to accept the uncreated Creator outside time and space. Outside time and space defined: not in space and not in time.
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.

Parture

09-22-2010, 08:14 PM

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 (http://biblocality.com/wiki/Logical_fallacy) of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy (http://biblocality.com/wiki/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

09-23-2010, 09:38 AM

Parture

09-23-2010, 10:53 AM

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) is a good introduction. This book (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285251692&sr=8-1) 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

09-23-2010, 12:21 PM

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

09-23-2010, 12:32 PM

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

09-23-2010, 12:50 PM

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. (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285264001&sr=8-1) 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

09-23-2010, 12:55 PM

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

09-24-2010, 03:21 PM

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=AjOSNj97_gk&feature=grec_index

Faith is a fail

09-28-2010, 08:26 PM

Parture

09-28-2010, 11:46 PM

I am glad you can't show it.

Faith is a fail

09-29-2010, 02:07 AM

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 (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/inforfal.html)
...
There is no evidence against p.

Therefore, p."

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

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

Churchwork

09-29-2010, 02:12 AM

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?

Parture

09-29-2010, 02:23 AM

"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)

Parture

10-02-2010, 01:51 PM

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.

Parture

10-02-2010, 02:59 PM

The desperations of Martin Wagner...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Parture

10-02-2010, 04:02 PM

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.

Parture

10-02-2010, 08:43 PM

He is indescribable and undeniable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VOn5eMcWW0

Churchwork

10-03-2010, 03:56 PM

No more lies Martin Wagner. No more lies! You're so full of fear. It is so easy to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmzuPLBot5Q&feature=related

Parture

10-04-2010, 06:24 PM

Have you heard about the Billion Pound Gorilla? How are you ever going to get that monkey off your back?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfpgOKtiZDM

Parture

10-07-2010, 04:08 PM

Troy, I'm starting to think you're developing something of an obsession with me that is quickly becoming creepy.

As I've stated before, everyone knows where your site is by now, so comments that just feature links back there will not be accepted. If you want to post your most recent reply here, you are welcome to submit it. Although I think you're still so hopelessly lost in basic epistemic errors that appear to be impossible for you to fix that I really see little point in continuing.
Epistimoligical errors, how, where, do tell, but you don't say? Why be coy and couth if you are on the up and up? Asserting is worthless self-pontification! The problem is, clearly, you say one thing then do another, not treating others as you would like to be treated, because in reality you don't allow my posts to be posted to your blog. Obviously, you are trying to conceal from people that which exposes you as a fraud. I get that. I would expect nothing less from a scam artist with lame excuses and his petty self in high gear.

Why you think I or anyone else here would be influenced by raw emotional appeals and terrible songs is simply baffling.Troy, in response to your latest attempted comment, which was even more pitiful than your usual: You know that projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) thing? You're doing it again.

Seriously gang, this time he claimed I was both avoiding him, and that I was "obsessed" with him, all in the same post! Reality and Troy really do not seem to get along well at all.

Please Troy, just go away and get a life.This is mere emotional appeal? If it is not pure logic then show it! Stop babbling and get off the pot! We should be able to avail all aspects of our being for consideration in examining the truth: spirit (intuition, communion, conscience, God-consciousness), soul (mind, will, emotion, self-consciousness), body (5 senses, world-consciousness). Why limit the scope of our being in examining the data?

Martin Wagner,

That's a neat way to obsessively avoid the issue at hand and the person who reveals your obsessive denial, by your projecting and misdirection, but not so healthy for you I don't think. Face the facts, that which doesn't exist can't cause anything for it would violate the laws of thermodynamics, and besides, it (your imaginary "nothing") doesn't exist. A one billion pound gorilla can't lift you up and place you on the mountain, because it doesn't exist. It's all in your imagination that stem from your hostility, independency and disobedience to God.

Infinite regress is impossible for you would have had an eternity to have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, I think it's true, those who remain in the matrix of their sin nature and the world of Satan, for Satan is the god of this world, have this "unspoken, subterranean motivation" (The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, p. 244) for carrying on as they do.

Of course, your blind faith gets weirder and weirder because if there was an infinite regress, there would have been an eternity going on before now, so that you would have never come into being. You should have never existed. Both problems with infinite regress are contradictory and thus, renders your infinite regress theory dull and void. Why be such a dullard and so oblivious to reality around you?

If you want it so time regresses back into timelessness whereby there is just a singularity or point at the bottom of the badminton shoot that would have always existed, but then you would hold a doublestandard because you deny God outside of time to create, but you allow your uncaused timeless singularity to arbitrarily bring time into existence. Yet, it would have no mechanism to do so. When someone has a double standard it exposes their deception they try to impress upon people.

The reason why the uncreated Creator can create, non-arbitrarily, is because it is His prerogative with free-will and a mind, self-consciousness, and since He is Spirit-having intuition, communion and conscience. One should ask themselves how the lesser could ever form the greater when it is never observed anywhere in nature? How could a bunch of vibrating strings, displaying action and reaction-cause and effect-ever propagate sentient life, life that is self-conscious, God-conscious, intuitive, can commune, has a conscience, a mind, will, feelings, volition? This is your holy grail you are trying to prove, but never will be able to. You can't even get abiogenesis to work empirically. You're a failure. Even if you could get abiogenesis to work, it would still be a result of intelligence, assuming you have a modicum of intelligence.

So one can be confident the reason you are the way you are is because you want to be. You can be sure of one thing then, Hell is not locked from the outside, but the inside; in other words, you want to go to Hell, because you will sin forever in rejecting your Creator like someone who forever estranges their parents or someone who finds himself in jail for his crimes but never wants to repent. What love is that?

What kind of life is a life that spends his waking hours, and probably his sleeping hours too, fighting Christians towards the day of reckoning when he will spend eternity in Hell? Christians operate differently. We preach the Good News to you and proof of God and who God is, because we have the love of Christ in us, and would not wish upon our worse enemy where you are going. How sad for you Martin Wagner! What a pitiful state to be in.