Evidence for God

[WonkoTSane]

By the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself. If nothing in nature can happen all by itself, then nature can't cause itself and must be caused by the only remaining possibility that which is uncaused. God is the uncaused creator and intelligent designer-Churchwork

This argument is nothing more than special pleading at it's simplest and most obvious. First, churchwork, you make the argument that nothing happens in nature all by itself. However, of course, this argument then applys to your god...if nothing happens in nature all by itself then god needs a creator. However, you quickly exempt your god from this very logic. Let's take a look at the special pleading fallacy:
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
We see then that your attempt to exempt god from your own argument is, in fact, nothing more than special pleading. The attempt to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc, without justifying the exemption.
Whereas, nature itself needs no such exemption. At the heart of all that is is energy. You, trees, rocks, water, are all ultimately energy. We know that energy can neither be created or destroyed. This is the first law of thermodynamics:The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained. The First Law clarifies the nature of energy. It is a stored quantity which is independent of any particular process path, i.e., it is independent of the system history. If a system undergoes a thermodynamic cycle, whether it becomes warmer, cooler, larger, or smaller, then it will have the same amount of energy each time it returns to a particular state. This is both mathmatically and experimentally proveable. So, there is no need for me to resort to any sort of special plea for the consideration of why energy has to be considered eternal because of (fill in the blank). Whereas god DOES need to have special considerations applied which are themselves untestable, unverifiable and unprovable. Again, the very definition of special pleading.

[Churchwork]

This argument is nothing more than special pleading at it's simplest and most obvious. First, churchwork, you make the argument that nothing happens in nature all by itself. However, of course, this argument then applys to your god...if nothing happens in nature all by itself then god needs a creator. However, you quickly exempt your god from this very logic.

All we have done is show that the uncreated must exist, because nature can't cause itself. Knowing this, we give the uncreated a name we call God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. Your argument is silly because it is saying the uncreated has to be created too. That is a contradiction. That's special pleading.

Whereas, nature itself needs no such exemption. At the heart of all that is is energy.

What you are really arguing for here is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but this is impossible because of the exponential progression of conscience, that mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

And you know Jesus is God by proof of His resurrection which you could not challenge.

The reason why all this concerns you is because if you don't accept what Jesus did for you on the cross, you most assuredly will be going to Hell.

[WonkoTSane]

Here, let me show you special pleading, again.
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
I have shown that the universe DOESN'T need a "first cause" as the universe is ENERGY and energy is ETERNAL. I showed this by posting the first law of thermodynamics. Let me show THIS again:Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. The First Law clarifies the nature of energy. It is a stored quantity which is independent of any particular process path, i.e., it is independent of the system history. If a system undergoes a thermodynamic cycle, whether it becomes warmer, cooler, larger, or smaller, then it will have the same amount of energy each time it returns to a particular state.
So, I have demonstrated that the universe needs to special exemptions to explain how it can have always been. The first law of thermodynamics is mathmatically and experimentally proveable.
YOU, on the other hand, have not demonstrated why GOD does not need a "first cause" other than to state that GOD is eternal without providing why YOUR explanation must be exempt from YOUR assertion that nothing in nature can create itself yet GOD is the uncaused cause. If you are going to argue this position, you must support this position. Otherwise, simply stating that YOUR position is exempt from your own argument is SPECIAL PLEADING, a logic fallacy.
What you are really arguing for here is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, but this is impossible because of the exponential progression of conscience, that mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects-Churchwork
My argument has nothing to do with CONSCIENCE or SIN. My argument proceeds from the simple fact that you are proceeding from a logical fallacy, that of special pleading. Further, as already stated, my argument is that the universe does NOT need a "first cause" as the universe, being composed of energy which is eternal, is in fact ETERNAL. YOU, on the other hand, offer no support to your position of God being outside of YOUR OWN proposition that "nothing in nature can create itself". If you are going to try to exempt your god from this then you MUST support your position, as I have. Please try to remain on topic.
The reason why all this concerns you is because if you don't accept what Jesus did for you on the cross, you most assuredly will be going to Hell-churchwork
THIS is an ad hominem attack. That is, attacking the person who is making the argument rather than responding to the argument. Please try to remain on topic.

[Churchwork]

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Do you see how you commit this fallacy by claiming the universe has an exemption to the trillions of examples of causes observable in nature, or by denying the observable fact in nature of our exponential progression of conscience?

I have shown that the universe DOESN'T need a "first cause" as the universe is ENERGY and energy is ETERNAL.

The exponential progression of conscience law disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the energy was created out of the uncreated. What you are requesting is a special exception contrary to the fact of nature.

YOU, on the other hand, have not demonstrated why GOD does not need a "first cause" other than to state that GOD is eternal without providing why YOUR explanation must be exempt from YOUR assertion that nothing in nature can create itself yet GOD is the uncaused cause.

Since the uncreated is proven, God of the Bible proves He is this uncreated by proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, illogical to require a cause for that which is uncaused.

My argument has nothing to do with CONSCIENCE or SIN. My argument proceeds from the simple fact that you are proceeding from a logical fallacy, that of special pleading. Further, as already stated, my argument is that the universe does NOT need a "first cause" as the universe, being composed of energy which is eternal, is in fact ETERNAL. YOU, on the other hand, offer no support to your position of God being outside of YOUR OWN proposition that "nothing in nature can create itself". If you are going to try to exempt your god from this then you MUST support your position, as I have. Please try to remain on topic.

The exponential progression of conscience disproves your theory that the universe doesn't need to be created. Since you are not observing the evidence of the exponential progression of conscience that disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects, you are not being honest with yourself. You're just special pleading and shutting your mind down to this information that disproves your theory.

THIS is an ad hominem attack. That is, attacking the person who is making the argument rather than responding to the argument. Please try to remain on topic.

Not at all. Since the uncreated is proven to exist and Jesus is proven to be God, and He said you are going to Hell if you reject His atonement, then you most certainly are going to Hell. One logical proof leads to the next and are undeniable. Since you can't cease to exist and you can't be with God's people, where else can you go but Hell? This is central to everything, so you are without excuse. Hell is the place of eternal separation from God that you yourself send yourself to. You have a foretaste of Hell even now when you wake up in the morning and as you move about through the day, when you go to sleep at night and dream also. You know what Hell is like more than any of us.

[WonkoTSane]

Your little theory is easily defeated, Churchwork. Mans existence in this universe has been for a finite time. Even your bible only traces mans existence back some six thousand years. Meanwhile the universe has existed for eternity. Divide any finite into eternity and you get zero.

Meanwhile, of course, you fail to respond to my arguments.

Epic fail.

[Churchwork]

Your little theory is easily defeated, Churchwork. Mans existence in this universe has been for a finite time. Even your bible only traces mans existence back some six thousand years. Meanwhile the universe has existed for eternity. Divide any finite into eternity and you get zero.

Meanwhile, of course, you fail to respond to my arguments.

I did respond to your arguments. See my previous post. You're just misunderstanding. Try to understand. Yes, the first God-conscious man and woman began about six thousand years ago, made in God's image, when God breathed into the body from dust (over 13.7 billion years, Gen. 2.7) directly creating man's spirit, and when the spirit made contact with the body the soul life was created.

In calculus anything derived from an eternity of the past is deemed as effectively existing for an eternity. This is the law of limits, so if there was as you assumed, though without any evidence, an eternity of the past of cause and effects, mankind would not have existed for an eternity, but certainly long enough not to have still been sinning to the extent it still does according to what we scientifically observe in the exponential progression of conscience.

Try to understand and come out of your closed box. There is something outside your box. And it is not focused only on the material and self, but sin and morality, submission and obedience, fellowship and communion, relationship and life, redemption and deliverance, resurrection and eternity, separation or eternal blessings.

As per your request in your pm I remove your account. If you want to rejoin again, please cut out the profanity, and try to gain control of yourself and your emotions. Maintain a certain dignity and composure, conscientiousness, consideration and empathy.

[DD2014]

And you know Jesus is God by proof of His resurrection which you could not challenge.

I am quoting a friend of mine (just so you know)

-The assumption is: The disciples would not have lied about a resurrection when they knew that it would mean a death sentence. That is, any rational person would rather deny something that they already knew to be false rather than be tortured to death. If they had hidden the body, they would know that the resurrection was false and even if tempted to start a new religion, they would recant under torture. Thus, it is assumed that they really did believe it to be true. And since they are regarded as first-hand witnesses, their testimony is taken to be compelling.

I'm not so sure that this last part can be considered so ironclad. I've seen people put up with the most degrading conditions and abusive behavior from their religious leaders, and remain fully convinced of the spiritual goodness of the leaders. A recent documentary on the "Strong City" cult by National Geographic shows a group of people that are following a messiah figure who was recently arrested for sexual impropriety with the younger members, yet the members remain doe-eyed and dedicated to this man. The documentary concluded with footage from the night that the leader predicted would be the end of the world. Of course the world didn't end, and the followers instantly re-wired the prediction from a literal end to a spiritual end. They all shouted with glee, "Liberty! We no longer exist!" They will gladly follow this man to death. Examples like this make it entirely possible that the apostles of Jesus were as unswervingly dedicated to him even if they had to make-believe that he rose from the dead. Once people have a strong emotional/spiritual investment in following, it is very difficult to convince them that they have been deceived.

Religion becomes a filter through which reality is interpreted. When the religion is questioned, it seems to the believer that the foundations of reality are being questioned, and that is a deeply disturbing thing. So most people laugh off any accusations or questions about their faith, or make bold proclamations of divine judgment against the one doing the questioning. So again, while entire books have been written about the strong testimonial value of the apostles, when their statements and actions are compared with common cultic reactions to loss of leadership, there is not much difference. And since it is not possible that each of the thousands of cult leaders around the world are really "the messiah", the dedication of the followers to their leader is not an indication of the truth of their religion.-

As you can see the "proof" you claim to validate the resurrection really just proves how gullable people are. Not that Jesus was resurrected.

[Churchwork]

I'm not so sure that this last part can be considered so ironclad. I've seen people put up with the most degrading conditions and abusive behavior from their religious leaders, and remain fully convinced of the spiritual goodness of the leaders.

Exactly, so the point being, they truly believed it and endured whatever abuse comes, so contrary to your view, it is ironclad. There are no reported cases in history of people dying for something they knew not to be true.

Once people have a strong emotional/spiritual investment in following, it is very difficult to convince them that they have been deceived.

Originally, the Apostles doubted Jesus was resurrected when they were told by the women. In your example, those followers still truly believed the delusion. Whereas the Apostles never changed their eyewitness claim they saw Jesus resurrected physically. Can you see the difference in both cases? One is based on delusion, the other is based on eyewitnessing.

Religion becomes a filter through which reality is interpreted. When the religion is questioned, it seems to the believer that the foundations of reality are being questioned, and that is a deeply disturbing thing. So most people laugh off any accusations or questions about their faith.

The same is true of atheism.

when their statements and actions are compared with common cultic reactions to loss of leadership, there is not much difference. And since it is not possible that each of the thousands of cult leaders around the world are really "the messiah", the dedication of the followers to their leader is not an indication of the truth of their religion.

But there is a difference, because we're not talking about delusional beliefs, things that can't be verified, but eyewitnessing resurrection. Do you see the power in the latter and why Christianity is the leading religion on the planet? Don't understand the power of historical evidence. The leading case winner in the Guinness Book of Records is a lawyer who won 245 cases in a row. He said the case for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is the best case he has ever seen. It is ironclad.

Their dedication is not the proof, but the fact that you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to explain away the multiple attestation in various group settings seeing Jesus resurrected. Thus, if no naturalistic theory meets the data, then we are left with the only known possibility, the uncreated created and revealed Himself to us in Christ and proven by resurrection. Like Spock said on Star Trek, if all known possibilities are impossible, it is what you deemed impossible (atheism is a lie) must be true.

As you can see the "proof" you claim to validate the resurrection really just proves how gullable people are. Not that Jesus was resurrected.

Aren't you being gullible to Satan who plants in your brain Jesus couldn't be resurrected because naturalistically it is impossible without considering the possibility the uncreated exists, since nature can't cause itself, and the Creator entered His creation, died for our sins and was resurrected as His consummate proof? Ultimately, the evil spirit wants you to go to Hell with him, so hasn't he got you right where he wants you by a simple assumption and closed-mindedness on your part? Think of that narrow mindedness as a puny brain limiting the knowledge of reality so that you are independent from the source of your existence; this attitude is Satan's attitude. God is simply giving you what you want in your resurrection. You will be resurrected, judged and thrown into Hell for all eternity where you will be consciously aware of your wrong choice for forever. However wrong, you will never change your mind either. You will truly be where you want to be.

Like C.S. Lewis said, a bunch of people arguing on a train reach the train station. When they get off they are still arguing and go to their respective towns. Unsurprisingly they still argue in their daily affairs to the point they leave their towns and go off into the horizon, each individually building their own shacks and repeating forever the phrase, "I told you so." That's you. You are alone and you will have your own individual confinement, locked up, for forever. I am trying to explain to you what your destiny is though I don't nearly do it justice enough exactly what this place will be like for you, but you have a foretaste even now of what it will be like, so you need not ask anyone what Hell will be like. Just look into yourself to know how you feel, think and live and this will be Hell. A Christian considers this Hell, for we would not want to think like you do, live like you do, and relate like you do because we consider it unhealthy for our spirit, soul and body. We know what it is to live in the old man before being saved, but now the old man has died on the cross with Christ and have been completely forgiven for all our sins. You neither have this forgiveness nor power over the flesh and so, you can't come before God with the righteousness of Christ.

If nothing else, realize a Christian has a conscience that senses this about you and your conscience and intuition are blocked from that sensation because of your love affair with the world and your outer man.

'Don't you realize that friendship with this world makes you an enemy of God? If your aim is to enjoy this world, you can't be a friend of God' (James 4.4).

[DD2014]

Exactly, so the point being, they truly believed it and endured whatever abuse comes, so contrary to your view, it is ironclad. There are no reported cases in history of people dying for something they knew not to be true.

I'm not saying they didn't belive in what they claim happened. I'm saying, just because someone is willing to die or suffer for a belief, does not make that belief true.

[example:] Just because someone truly belives that Allah will give them 72 virgins if they die for him (Allah) Does not make that true. The same goes for all religions/cults/beliefs.

Originally, the Apostles doubted Jesus was resurrected when they were told by the women. In your example, those followers still truly believed the delusion. Whereas the Apostles never changed their eyewitness claim they saw Jesus resurrected physically. Can you see the difference in both cases? One is based on delusion, the other is based on eyewitnessing.

In my example, no one died.


Do you know the 5 stages of grief?

1. Denial, shock or isolation
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression or sadness
5. Acceptance of the loss

So it makes sense why the apostles would not belive the women (other then the fact that they are women) IT IS PART OF THE GRIEVING PROCESS! So stop using this as "proof" of a resurrection.

The same is true of atheism.

At least we agree on something

Guinness Book of Records is a lawyer who won 245 cases in a row. He said the case for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is the best case he has ever seen. It is ironclad.

First of all, lawyers have got guilty people out of conviction. That does not mean that the accused is innocent, it just means that they have a good lawyer.

Second. Then why didn't he prove that the resurrection in court?

...you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to explain away the multiple attestation in various group settings seeing Jesus resurrected

Grief...

Like Spock said on Star Trek, if all known possibilities are impossible, it is what you deemed impossible (atheism is a lie) must be true.

Lol! Ya that is the answer, quote a fictional alien person :D

Aren't you being gullible to Satan who plants in your brain Jesus couldn't be resurrected because naturalistically it is impossible without considering the possibility the uncreated exists, since nature can't cause itself,

Special pleading...

...and the Creator entered His creation, died for our sins and was resurrected as His consummate proof

Again, Grief

You are alone and you will have your own individual confinement, locked up, for forever.

I'm fairly sure that someone out there shares my beliefs. Likewise, the same goes for you

[Churchwork]

I'm not saying they didn't belive in what they claim happened. I'm saying, just because someone is willing to die or suffer for a belief, does not make that belief true.

I am not saying it is true just because they truly believed it, but because there is no naturalistic way to explain it away other than it really happened, since there are no documented cases of group hallucinations no matter how grieved they were. Individually when people hallucinate, they later recant it. The disciples never retracted in their eyewitness accounts in various group settings, group after group, seeing Jesus resurrected. It was multiply attested.