Philosophical help with a Christian debate

[genkaus]

I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum, apologies if I am not, first time posting and all that.
After a debate I had with a christian the other day, she was taken my argument and passed it on to someone else to answer it. Basically, this other person has emailed me taking up the christian corner as it were!
When it comes to psychology I'm all there, but philosophy isn't an area I have studied. Basically I'm about to post the email that he sent below, he's banging on about Metaphysucal Naturalism and the like... I'll be honest and admit I don't clearly understand what that is! It just looks to me like its an attempt to bamboozal me with a load of technicality and nonsense and over collude my original premise (which was basically that it was illogical to take the bible as read and believe all the nonsense that was in there). However, I'd actually like to throw and email back at him in response rather saying "I don't know what you're talking about"!!! If I post the email below here, is there anyone philosophically savvy enough who could formulate a coherent and concise response (thus sparing me the time to have to get a degree in philosophy from Cambridge University!).... I look forward (and hope to learn a great deal) from your responses. Many thanks in anticipation...

There are few things more annoying than a religious apologist who uses pseudo-philosophical babble and long winded sentences to present their case. Ultimately, they are not saying anything new and what they are saying has already been refuted many times over - but unfortunately for us, we still have to go through all that bullshit over and over again.

You can quote me in your response.

The email in question:

Conversation started today

14:35
Yochanan יהוה-הוא-אדיב Lilley
Hello Paul
Sorry to just appear out of no where. I was around Lindsay's house the other day and she told me about a conversation you guys were having, and I said to her I would like to address some of the issues of atheism vs Theism that you guys were discussing.
As far I could see you had not made any positive arguments for atheism really, which we can address later if you wish to converse

That's because atheism does not require any positive arguments.

If I may I will just state that In my studies of philosophy I have realised two things.

By the looks of your arguments - you didn't study philosophy. You studied apologist bullshit.

Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality,

Hah - what a joke. Christian theism is one of the most nonsensical, incoherent and irrational worldviews out there.

and secondly I have particularly found the World Views which atheism has as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism, Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in making sense of reality...

Thus proving that you have not actually studied philosophy - only apologist bullshit.

Now I am sending you a few deductive arguments I have written showing the rational coherency of Christian Theism as apposed to atheism.

You do realize that deductively valid arguments from illogical premises do not establish rational coherency right? Wait, what am I thinking - ofcourse you don't.

In a deductive argument if the premises are true the conclusion (logically) has to be true (as long the argument is valid).
So unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument.
That is how a deductive arguments work. So if you disagree with the argument, please address which premise you disagree with and why...

Actually, how it really works is you have to prove the premise first. We don't have to disprove it. And if you fail to prove it, the argument is to be rejected.

These are a few of the argument:
>>>Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?<<<
https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-a...1063360572

The skeptics' question does not rest on any premise - it questions your given premise that "everything must have a cause".
Skeptics also don't assume universe to be finite.
We also don't agree that logic, math or science demands that it be finite.
The nature of universe dictates it be finite only if it exists in a temporal context. However, since the temporal context is within the universe, that argument is no longer valid. Nor is the usage of thermodynamics - which has been refuted already.
Something can come from nothing does not mean anything can come from nothing. So, even if universe did come from nothing - which no one is saying it did - it still wouldn't mean that anything can appear out of nothing.
Further, we know that the universe is not spatio-temporally bound - quite the reverse, in fact - and with that the rest of the blather about "supernatural cause" falls apart.

Even if - and this is stretching rationality to the extreme - the universe were spatio-temporally bound and did have a cause - all the other assumptions about the cause are deductively invalid. It need not be bound by any metaphysical laws nor it need be rational.

>>>C.S. Lewis’ argument from reason against naturalistic atheism...<<<
https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-a...1529745192

The ignorance of naturalistic philosophies is simply astounding.

Premises 2.2 and 2.3 are incorrect.

I'm getting a bit bored going through the rest of the crap. So I'll reply to the rest later.