I will, but you and I both know that you're just going to dismiss my response. Your requirement for criticism is more strict that your initial argument. At some point in each of the following arguments, you make a WILD assertion which is unsubstantiated, but you base your argument on it assuming it is absolute truth.

NOTE: After I emailed my response to him, he shockingly dismissed everything I had to say by just saying "Is that all you got?" ... so... you can't say I didn't call that ahead of time.

The RESURRECTION OF JESUS argument (please see Gary Habermas' attached dissertation as scholarly back-up)

Paul says that "if Christ is not risen your faith is in vain" . . . thus, this is a critical argument:

1. There is strong evidence for the general authenticity of the gospels, including the record that Jesus lived and died;

2. There is also strong evidence that something unusual happened following the killing of Jesus which meant that the movement did not die with His death;

Problem #1 with this argument: Spiritual, Religious, Political movements OFTEN do not die with the death of the leader. The Civil Rights movement didn't die with Malcolm X or Dr. King. Mormonism did not die with Joseph Smith. Islam did not die with Muhammad. It isn't a sign of any sort of divine quality.

3. One explanation of the fact that the Christian movement grew and spread is that Jesus rose from the dead;

But of course this is entirely conjecture. There is no proof of that.

4. Other explanations appear to be flawed and inadequate;

Problem #2: This is false conjecture. You're dismissing out of hand EVERYTHING except the one explanation you WANT to believe.

5. Therefore (in the absence of other credible explanations) it is probable that Jesus did rise from the dead;

Problem #3: This is a complete logical fallacy. You've looked at the field of possible explanations, arbitrarily dismissed all of the ones you don't like and then said, "Well OBVIOUSLY this is the only one left and it must be true." Complete logical failure.

6. His rising from the dead gives us good reason to trust Him - it gives him unique authority;

Problem #4 with this argument: You have absolutely no proof that he rose from the dead.

7. Jesus was a theist (a practicing Jew);

8. It follows that there is strong evidence that theism is a reasonable position to take supported by concrete evidence.

There is no concrete evidence. You're just using that phrase, but you have no concrete evidence.

Forms of the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. The universe had a beginning

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else

3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else (a creator)

*sigh* Todd, this is such a TIRED argument. It fails so horribly, I'm surprised you even included it. If everything had to be created by something else, then who created God? I know, I know, your answer is that God didn't have a beginning and therefore the argument of cause and effect doesn't apply to Him. But don't you see the utter logical fallacy? Your argument to prove an infinite God doesn't have a basis unless you assume that God is infinite. It's circular and an utter failure of an argument.

1. Every part of the universe is dependent

Problem #1 with this argument: dependent on what? Dependent on another part of the universe? This vague assertion is unsubstantiated, but I'm pretty sure you intentionally left this detail out because you want the reader to mentally back-fill that gap with God. However, if every part of the universe is dependent on another part of the universe, then suddenly the dependence you are trying to describe is an entirely natural one and there isn't room left for God... so you choose to leave that part out.

2. If every part is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent

Problem #2: Again, dependent on what?

3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some Independent Being

Problem #3: This argument attempts to assert if A and B then J. You start with a very shaky point 1 and try to extend that to point 2, but then given that you jump wildly that "Welll, it must be God then" without providing any evidence or logical reasoning to that end.

The same types of problems exist with the following line of false reasoning, but I've already talked about those things, so I'll respond differently to the next argument.

1. Every event that had a beginning had a sufficient cause

2. The universe had a beginning

How do you know? This is entirely conjecture. If you're willing to believe in an infinitely existing God, why aren't you willing to believe in an infinitely existing universe? The Big Bang is merely the furthest point back in time about which science can make any hypothetical statements.

3. Therefore, the universe had a sufficient Cause

Even if you'd like to make this argument, which as I said before is a logical fallacy, then you would still need to show that your "Cause" was God, and there is no scientific or logical proof of that.

1. Every effect has a cause

2. The universe is an effect

Unsubstantiated assertion, just like above. This argument fails here.

3. Therefore, the universe has a Cause

But according to you, God has existed forever, an infinite amount of time, which means that if God exists in the form you say He does then an infinite number of moments had to elapse to get to this point and your argument falls apart.

This next argument is awesome...

Then your infinite God does not exist. QED

Logical failure. You have ignored the case in which the series is formed by infinite successive addition.

Problem #1: This step makes no sense. You just said, "I undeniably exist" and then followed it with "I might not exist." You contradicted yourself on step 2.

Problem #2: Unsubstantiated assertion. The argument continues to fail.

Problem #3: You WILDLY jump from your uncaused cause to an assertion that the cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-knowing and all-perfect. That's a completely wild assertion with absolutely no basis.

Problem #4: Even if you overlook all of the logical fallacies of this argument, the God described in the Qu'ran also fits... but you aren't Muslim.

This is just a restatement of all of the above arguments, I'll let me comments above apply here as well.

Problem #1: You mistake something that works as something with great design. This is a common logical fallacy among Christians trying to make these arguments. Evolution explains many ways in which an elegant system comes into existence without a designing agent acting upon it.

*sigh* The ontological argument is so flawed that even most Christians dismiss it, Todd.

So you are saying to me that you fully conceive of God? That you, with a finite, imperfect mind can truly and full conceive of an infinite, perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God?

Additionally, one of the fundamental problems with this "argument" is that it bases truth and reality upon the limits of human imagination. Humans throughout history were unable to even conceive of the science, math, invention, etc. that we have now, so according to the ontological argument then those things couldn't have existed either... or the envelope of the limits of our ability to conceive ideas is a moving target.

There are plenty of people throughout history who have torn apart the Ontological argument, including many, many Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

This is just a sillier restatement of the ontological argument which is a fallacious argument to begin with.

This is probably the worst argument of the group...

Problem #1: This is an unsubstantiated claim upon which you predicate your entire argument, so you entire argument is predicated on conjecture.

Problem #2: Immortality precludes death. It's even right there in the word..... im- and -mort. Even if you were to accept point #1, which you shouldn't, because it's a ridiculous assertion... the innate desire for immortality that humans have is a fear of death, they don't want to die. Your argument is based on dying, therefore it's inherently contradictory.

There is no NEED for religion, so this argument starts on bad ground.

Problem #1: This is random conjecture, not evidence or proof of anything. It doesn't follow any logical origin. It's not based upon any philosophical given... anything. It's pure conjecture.

Problem #2: Based on _pure conjecture_ that humans need God, the best you can follow this up with is "probably."

*sigh* Utterly ridiculous.

I agree.

Total conjecture. This is the problem you consistently suffer from, Todd. You don't ACTUALLY understand logical progression. 1) Chocolate is awesome. 2) Therefore God exists. It's a ridiculous "argument" that holds nothing more than you random claiming that God exists.

Right, which makes it not a logical argument. If it were a logical argument, it wouldn't be left to subjective evaluation.

The above lacks any form of argument. It's a group of partial sentences that do not even form assertions.

Total logical fallacy. The external truth is eternal regardless of whether we perceive it or not. The concept 2+2=4 will remain true even if all life in the universe died out and all written records of such truth were destroyed.

Problem: Wrong, you CLAIM that objective moral values exist, but upon which are you claiming that? Your subjective perspective? Then you can't claim objectivity.

Same problem at the "argument" above.

Problem #1: You clearly don't understand the word "fact." Building an argument on an unsubstantiated claim means the entire rest of your argument is built on nothing.

Problem #2: As I said, when you base your argument on falsehood, your argument is false. You are trying to build from a bit of conjecture.

Problem #1: No, there aren't. You keep asserting this as true, but you have no basis for it.

The argument below is essentially the same and I'll reply there.

This isn't an argument for or against the existence of God. It is attempting to build a reaction that you don't WANT atheism to be true, but remember according to your own rules, WANTing something to be true doesn't make it true.

The deepest problem with this attempt at vilifying atheism is that humans have created their own laws throughout time. Secular laws and governments have been able to create stable societies, because while in a purely anarchistic situation everything is permissible... humans throughout history, in a secular fashion, have banded together to increase their chances for survival. In doing so, they mutually agreed to live by certain rules or suffer certain punishments for breaking those rules. So we trade our absolute freedom (everything is permissible) for stable and safe society. That's the basis of the Social Contract that our nation is founded upon.

Problem #1: We only experience our tiny local area of the universe as intelligible. We can grasp the physical mechanics of gravitation and how large bodies in the universe move around each other, but being able to grasp the true scale and complexity of the entire universe is really something that we can't truly do. People can't even TRULY grasp the concept of one trillion dollars, even though our government deals with those numbers all the time. The only way to get people to come close to understanding the scope of something so large is to use smaller analogs where in one item represents many items.

Problem #2: Again, this is a common fallacy of argument I run into when discussing these things with Christians. It's always either black or white to people who think this way. You completely ignore the myriad of options in between which contain elements of natural selection.

Problem #3: Utter conjecture. You're trying to set up some "logical" argument, but all you are saying is "1) Either God exists or God doesn't exist. 2) God exists. 3) Therefore, God exists. QED" It's a stupid attempt at argument.

Ok, I've been waiting for this one... it's awesome!

Here is the GENIUS portion of your argument.... YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

From your "argument" from JOY:


1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death
So, in the same email, you make an unsubstantiated claim ("every desire has a real object which fulfills it") then attempt to make an argument that God exists based on that claim... and then you ALSO try to make the same argument but using a violation of your very premise!

It's ridiculous, Todd! You present contradictory arguments (both of which are fallacious, btw).

Problem #1: You have no basis for the conjecture that humans can't imagine something greater than themselves.

Problem #2: Lots of other Gods have those qualities as well. Are you saying they exist? I don't think you are. So YOU are choosing to apply it only in the way YOU want. It's not a universal truth, Todd, it's just something you WANT to believe.

Problem #1: Many people of different eras and widely different cultures have attributed disease to demonic possession, but medical research has shown us that disease has physical and mechanical origins. You're trying to make an argument here based on ignorance of the people experiencing events. People who didn't understand global plate tectonics would often attribute earthquakes to the Gods being angry. Their ignorance doesn't make it true, it only makes them ignorant of the truth.

Problem #2: It's _easily_ conceivable that so many people could be wrong. All of the people before a certain point in history thought the Earth moved around the Sun. When the idea was put forward, you could easily have said, "But that would mean EVERYone is wrong that the Earth is the center... how could they ALL be wrong? That's inconceivable." But they ALL WERE WRONG.

It's just another in a LONG line of common fallacious arguments, Todd. I could provide you with a list of things people all believed at a certain point in history, but turned out to be wrong.

This restatement of the above argument falls flat for the same reason. The vast majority of people at different points throughout history HAVE been wrong and have been proven wrong.

Todd, this argument is SO often used and abused, it has a NAME: Argumentum ad populum.

Problem #1: You offered something like this earlier in this long list of awful failures of argument. It's still random conjecture which doesn't make sense.

Problem #2: Another fallacy of argument. You offer the supposition (not proof) that nothing HAS to be, then you claim this means nothing would exist. This is a common logical fallacy, where you convert a conditional into a requirement. You said nothing NEEDS to exist, therefore nothing WOULD exist, but your first statement has room for existence while your second statement squeezes it out of the argument... because that part of the argument doesn't suit you. It's like saying, "I don't NEED to eat ice cream. Therefore, I'm not eating ice cream." But just because I don't need to be, don't mean I'm not. I could be eating it even though I don't NEED to.

So there you go, Kenny - at least you can't accuse me of not attempting to make the case. Now, out of respect back:

God cannot be experienced in any tangible, testable, verifiable way. I have not touched, tasted, heard, seen or smelled God. You haven't either. No one either of us known has directly touched, tasted, heard, seen or smelled God. No one ever known by a person either of us have ever known has... or anyone they've ever known... or anyone they've ever known. There are no devices that we can use to measure, in any way, God or the existence of God. I can't use my eyes to see human cells, but with a device such as a microscope I can amplify my ability to see small things and so I can now peer into the depths of the human cell.

Not you, nor I, nor anyone we've ever met or anyone they've ever met or anyone they've ever met, etc. has any direct, measurable, verifiable experience with God. Religious people will claim all day long that they experienced an event which they ATTRIBUTE to an act of God, or that they INTERPRET as an act of God, but no one, not a single one of them can provide direct, measurable, verifiable evidence of it.

If a person showed up today, let's say in the middle of the Occupy Wall Street protests, and claimed to be God... would you believe that person? Let's say they were preaching the Word exactly as you believe it to be true, so everything they were saying felt exactly right to you... and this person claimed that they had once again been reborn as a man in order to gather together His flock... would you believe him? Why not?

Of course, Todd refuses to answer that last question and instead resorted to name calling (which I explained to him is ALSO another named fallacy of argument call argumentum ad hominem).