Hey All,
I haven’t forgotten about you. Just busy this weekend. I’ll get back to this soon.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
I’ve seen this nonsense too many times, and from too many religious apologists not to be dubious about your claim. Besides if you have the time to respond, only to tell us you haven’t got time to respond, that’s insulting our intelligence.
You have ignored multiple responses from me to your original first cause argument, yet continue to espouse the same irrational claims, and falsely assert it is logical. I can only infer that your evasion is dishonest.
From now on you get that question, and nothing else from me until you answer it. It’s entirely up to you if you want to go back and honestly address my posts explaining the known logical fallacies you used, I’m good either way at this point.
Your continuing evasion of course has fairly obvious implications.
2 Likes
Yeah, tends to reinforce my perception that the presuppositional apologists we get here are usually disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
I had hoped this one might be the exception. That’s why I asked he/she post the paper here. I suspect he/she may not have presented our opinions and arguments with complete candour. That annoys me because I think people here made an effort to be honest, and to explain things simply. . Also a simple matter to edit out identifying features.
Yeah, I’m a grumpy old fart. Also a cynic and skeptic to name just three of my more sterling qualities. 
4 Likes
I’m right there with you guys. I actually enjoy responding to legitimate inquiries; however, once someone askes the same question 5 times and continues uttering the same debunked nonsense, it’s time to start the poo fling.
I keep meaning to standardise an answer debunking the KCA, and then I can just paste it in each time.
Though tbh all any apologists would have to do is Google it for themselves.
Philosophical and rational criticisms of Lane Craig’s KCA.
So the fact so many religious apologists still parrot it on here, without bothering to first read those rebuttals, suggests they’re not after honest debate at all.
The erstwhile student, collecting reactions from atheists, is now so overused on here it’s become a cliche for dishonest religious apologetics.
Can anyone ever remember a claimed student even acknowledging the well known and widely available criticisms of first cause arguments?
Let alone coming back with an honest cogent response from a professor?
I think there is one on the front page.
If a student was charged with discussing and/or debunking the Kalam, all they have to do is spend five minutes Googling. OK, it seemed nice for a student to come in here and get the atheist take on this fallacy. But in almost every circumstance, our statements were warped and mis-represented.
Hello All,
Thanks for your patience. Busy week this week and the last. I just wanted to respond to let you know I haven’t forgotten about you.
Now I want to respond to all of these posts; but I need to clear some things up first.
Misunderstandings:
There have been several of you on this thread who have mentioned that I have misquoted you or not understood you or haven’t listened to you. Wherever this has truly happened I apologize. I am genuinely trying to engage with your position but I’M NOT PERFECT. I’m just a human being. I’m finite and will have errors. But I do desire to understand your position so if you feel that I have misquoted you please correct me. I’m always open to being respectfully corrected. I had hoped that my requests for correction would show that this is my heart in engaging with you guys. But in case it has been missed here it is. =]
Expectations:
That being said, I’m not sure if this is correct, but I”m getting the feeling that there is an expectation that I need to have perfect responses, and perfect listening skills, and perfect understanding of all topics in all areas and immediate response times with in depth analysis at all times. This is not fair to me as I’m only human. You guys, I’m trying my best to respond well to you guys but I’m not always going to get it right or perfect. I’m respectfully asking you guys for the grace to be human on this thread. I’m not going to have researched every topic on every thing to the level of a Ph.D before responding here, I’m going to learn as I go, I’m going to be wrong and have to correct myself, and I’m not going to be able to be available to respond 24hrs a day. This is the beauty and frustration of life. But as long as we are here and trying, I need to be understood as such. I’m extending this to you guys and I’m asking for this respect in return.
I’m not other Christians but I also am:
I am soooooooooooooo sorry and heartbroken for all of the hurts that other Christians and theists have wrongly given to you guys on this thread for being rude or mean or not listening or intentionally insulting and I’m sure much more than words could express. This website has been up for years and I’m sure there are many - too many - stories of these types of instances. I’M NOT THOSE PEOPLE. I cannot answer for those people either. They did what they did and that sucks. It probably hurt how Christianity is viewed in addition to everything else. But I’m not those people. Please give me the opportunity to show you who I am.
Having said this, I”m not going to be perfect. I’m not nor have ever been and therefore I cannot promise to be. It’s likely that there will be ways that I wound you guys as well (for that I apologize in advance). I also can’t promise to be here forever. But for as long as I am here, in whatever time we are fortunate to have, I will truly attempt to listen, respond, and challenge and change.
I’ll respond as soon as I can to the questions in an order that’s meaningful and efficient to the many posts since my last post and ones I still haven’t had the time to get to.
For myself, it is not about hurt feelings, it is about moving myself and everyone closer to the TRUTH.
When I state “truth”, that is obtained by observation, testing, confirmation, and standards of evidence one would find in a court of law.
The “appeal to authority” is an anathema to me, that is just forcing others to believe whatever you say without and checks and balances.
Many have pointed out the flaws in your arguments, the many fallacies and contradictions. Yet in many cases, you just keep rambling on, repeating those very same mistakes. These fallacies are not invented by atheists, they are rules of logic. Please, when someone points out a fallacy, research what that fallacy is, and attempt to display that you are actually learning instead of just repeating the same crap over and over and over and over.
WOW 
a whole paper to just say…
“Sorry shitheads! I’m a student 
give me a fucking break 
. Here… to @Nyarlathotep and @Whitefire13
YES or NO
Have you stopped beating your wife???
Man!
That’s a trick question! Got it! I see how my question to you guys was the same… “
But NO
Not one answer. AND YOU do not need to “apologize” on behalf of anyone. WE ARE grown ups - your assumptions of our past “hurts” by Christians is NOT YOURS to apologize for.
In fact - you’re staying in step with the way you all respond on here! You just happen to have you’re own flair…
No biggy 
I don’t expect a student to defend an invisible thingy that obviously has no ability to defend itself.
When an argument has been addressed. FIRST PREMISDE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: You don’t get to re-state it as if you have not heard the debunking. Go away. Think about it. Come back with a new argument or just give up.
Everything that began to exist had a cause. “Either demonstrate that the universe began to exist or that the thing you are going to argue for next, your version of god, did not need to begin to exist.” You can not possibly know if the universe began to exist or not. We know it began to expand and that is all. PHYSICS breaks down at Planck Time. You are asserting you know information beyond all current scientific knowledge. We would like to know how in the hell you became so damn smart. Demonstrate your claims or admit they are fallacious and without merit.
2 Likes
Or you could admit to being a closet or ‘peculiaris gnostic’ ie you have ‘special knowledge’ of an arcane and supernatural nature as expressed in scripture or experienced as revelation or both.
If your knowledge about things, like physics before Planck Time is peculiaris, then you can only rely on philosophy to indicate if the logic of your arguments is true. If your first statements start with unsubstantiated presumptions then you can not expect them to deliver any standard of actual rational truth.
My position on the origin and eternal nature of the universe is, I don’t know. And I really can’t bring myself to believe a popular ancient Greek thinker, a bunch of timewasting 12th century Islamic navel gazers or a dislikeable professional theist debater who oozes industrial grade academic arrogance could possibly know either.
You are most welcome to whatever fantastic beliefs about the universe and everything in it you want to entertain but, and I don’t mean to be unkind, but, your attempts to explain the physical reality of it, with particular reference to its origin, longevity and eventual fate, within the scope of your personal theology is going to be no more edifying than those of Aristotle, the Kalam fraternity or WLC.
1 Like
Unlikely in the extreme, unless you consider overweening theistic ignorance an edged weapon. .
1 Like
Now that’s very telling. Not to mention arrogant. I didn’t notice anyone getting ‘wound up’. I think people here have shown a lot more patience and civility that your posts have merited. I didn’t think you were trolling (which ‘wound up’ implies) I simply saw a common or garden variety presuppositional apologist ,with all that implies here…
Actually he said “wound” as in with a sharp instrument as if his rapier like intelligence and wit was an offensive weapon, As it is, he is merely offensive.
1 Like
Oh. Silly old me. That makes even less sense. I think this one lives in a world of its own, possibly on another planet.
2 Likes
Thanks for your patience. I will now engage at a limited capacity as my time is limited.
- Objective evidence for God.
A number of you have requested that I give an answer for objective evidence for God. I honestly think that this conversation will not be fruitful for now. Not because there isn’t evidence for His existence but rather because I’m assessing (and could be wrong) that (1) the only evidence at this point that would convince you is for me to “physically” take you before God, point to Him and say “here He is” or some variation of that and (2) the world we find ourselves in, leads us to gathering a multiplicity of facts to reason that God exists or not. And it’s to this we turn in heading (III).
But before this, so you know that I’m trying to answer you I will give you this one piece of objective evidence.
Jesus resurrected from the dead; therefore, the God of the Bible exists
I’m down to debate this point but not now as it will not be as fruitful as heading (III) will be to clear up first and so I will not engage with points discussing it.
- Current Objections
I haven’t had time to re-read all posts against my arguments (there are over 100 posts on this thread now) However, from what I do remember there has only been one major one I’ll need to do a little more research on and that is Planck time. From the links posted, after a brief pass, I couldn’t find anything to discredit the arguments I’ve already posted about the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. Planck time is an unimaginably small unit of time (debatable about the unimaginable part since it’s measured lol but you get the expression). However, it’s still not infinite. It’s small but it’s not infinitely small. Therefore, it still has to engage with the arguments I’ve placed here for an infinite regress. Again for now this will not be a fruitful argument to engage with for now. Lastly, if there have been times where I have repeated arguments in a way that has disregarded your comments I apologize. I will reread this thread as I have time and see where that happened. However, I usually will repeat an argument if I am not convinced that it has been logically debunked. I’m still not convinced that the KCA has been debunked by any arguments here. But again for now this is not the topic of discussion.
- Major Impasse and focus of discussion
We are at a major impasse, ladies and gentlemen. In this time, the movement toward arguing for (or even against) God will most likely be best based upon cumulative case argumentation. This is why I’ve stressed the analogy of triangles. The analogy may not be perfect right now, but I’m hoping you get the general gist of the analogy. I’m highlighting that we naturally and rightfully reason by way of cumulative case in many areas of life and it is a good means toward increasing our chances of getting to truth claims in both everyday life as well as the hard sciences.
If what I have mentioned does not seem reasonable, Then please answer me this in return:
What (single) objective evidence (meaning that it conclusively proves without holes or room for doubt) do you have to prove there is NOT a God.
Now for me, I don’t think you guys trying to answer this question will be fruitful. Rather, I’d rather us focus on talking about the following as this seems to be a root issue:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.
An infinite regress is NOT a logical fallacy; or at the very least you haven’t explained how it would be.
This is wrong. I haven’t required a quantum physicist 
to hold an electron in his hand. HOWEVER they provide demonstrable evidence for their claims. This is therefore “convincing” to me because they have met a high standard for evidence.