What's Illusory? God or a Magical Universe

[Churchwork]

God is a mythical creation of man to explain what could not at his invention be explained, and has since become out-dated and useless with the advent of scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge tells me there is a preponderance of evidence that everything in nature has a cause, so all things in the universe have a cause especially the first event. Therefore, since nature can't cause itself or happen all by itself, logically and scientifically we are left with only one known possibility available to us-the uncreated created. Therefore, denying the existence of the uncreated creator is but a mythical illusory daydream.

It gives me great comfort knowing though people are delusional God is in control of all things and knows every hair on my head and works all things for our good. It would seem based on the evidence God is just as much if not needed more today than ever before, because of increasing complexity.

[DD2014]

Scientific knowledge tells me there is a preponderance of evidence that everything in nature has a cause, so all things in the universe have a cause especially the first event. Therefore, since nature can't cause itself or happen all by itself, logically and scientifically we are left with only one known possibility available to us-the uncreated created. Therefore, denying the existence of the uncreated creator is but a mythical illusory daydream.

Wrong. The properties of the stuff that makes up the universe are not shared with the universe itself. You’re assuming that because everything IN the universe has a cause, the universe must also have a cause. That’s illogical.
It’s the same as saying, My cells are so tiny that they cannot be seen, and my body is made up of those cells, so my body must be so tiny that it can’t be seen.

[Churchwork]

The properties of the stuff that makes up the universe are not shared with the universe itself. You’re assuming that because everything IN the universe has a cause, the universe must also have a cause. That’s illogical.

The properties of the stuff that make up the universe are not shared with the universe itself? The properties that make up my body are shared with my body. I am not assuming because everything in the universe has a cause the universe must have a cause, but that if the universe doesn't have a cause it can't violate heat death and the exponential progression of conscience.

It’s the same as saying, My cells are so tiny that they cannot be seen, and my body is made up of those cells, so my body must be so tiny that it can’t be seen.

It’s the same as saying, My cells [properties] are so tiny that they cannot be seen [shared], and my body is made up of those cells [properties], so my body must be so tiny that it can’t be seen [shared].

Your argument is comparing size with cause and effect!? Seen or not seen has nothing to do with cause and effect. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause. Your argument is silly nonsense.

[DD2014]

Your argument is comparing size with cause and effect!? Seen or not seen has nothing to do with cause and effect. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause.

Your right not the best analogy.

But a magical sky king has nothing to do with cause and effect.

Your argument is silly nonsense.

And exponential progression of conscience is proven science? When did this happen???

[Churchwork]

But a magical sky king has nothing to do with cause and effect. And exponential progression of conscience is proven science? When did this happen?

God is not of nature, say the sky, but He is outside of creation. We know this because nature can't cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. You have been unable to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God.

We have always known about the exponential progression of conscience, for it is alway happening through the millennia, for which we can cite many examples. Therefore, the universe had to have been created and a magical universe happening all by itself is a delusion. All to reject God!? How elaborate.

[DD2014]

1. Exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ.

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

[DD2014]

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

You're presupposing god to demonstrate god's existence. That's a logical no-no.

[DD2014]

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

I'm afraid I can't agree to that. If you can present vague or illogical arguments that can apply to other gods from other cultures and religions, you must admit that you believe in them too. That's how it works.

[DD2014]

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

I put to you that the "conscience" is a construct which can be better explained by psychology and neurology. When put in more scientific terms, the "exponential progression of conscience" actually becomes something more clear: natural evolution.
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon

[Churchwork]

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

There are some universally accepted things we put people in jails for because of their sin, so sin is real and denial of it is sinful. Hence, sin at least on some level is objective which only further points to God because you can't have objective morals without God, otherwise morality is just like the swaying of the wind. At one time human sacrifices and throwing children in the mouth of the Molech god was acceptable and other times or dispensations it is not. We could just as easily bring back such practices. Some things really are sinful.

Our knowledge of sin, therefore, is not invented by man, but we are made aware of it by the law given to us by God and which is imprinted on our own hearts. The more we try to keep the law, even the law unto ourselves, we realize we are utter failures. The law, and what is written on our own hearts objectively and universally agreed, brings out the fact that we are sinners.

For the purposes of the proof, you only need concern yourself with that which we observe and see where it leads...

The exponential progression of conscience and the counterpart reduction of sin on a per capita basis through the millennia proves God, because we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. We would have existed far longer than just six thousand years since the first Adamic man.

In fact, I couldn't even give you a number high enough that even comes close to approximating the existence of the human race in the nearness to the eternity of the past, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. What an amazing proof this is! What makes this so special to me is few use this proof technique in Step 1. The most people say usually is "heat death" would be far greater than it is, which is true also.

You're presupposing god to demonstrate god's existence. That's a logical no-no.

On the contrary. What was said was that you claim you need to know everything that is, was or ever will be to determine if God exists or not. You are presupposing you have to be God to know if God exists. That's pride! And an unreasonable demand to say the least. I am not assuming you need to be God or even if God exists to determine if God exists.

If in a court of law and science preponderance of evidence is good enough, then so is it good enough for our determining God exists or not. It's like a roof top putting an egg on tip. It is a very tight balancing act to put the egg there without it rolling down one way or another. That's agnosticism. It's a dishonest balancing act. Sincerity dictates you are either atheist or Christian and nothing in between.

I'm afraid I can't agree to that. If you can present vague or illogical arguments that can apply to other gods from other cultures and religions, you must admit that you believe in them too. That's how it works.

Your logic doesn't follow at all. The fact, which you admit those arguments for their gods are illogical and vague, shows they have no substance and are self-contradictory, or at the very least when put beside Jesus Christ, Jesus wins out easily. God never contradicts Himself and He is always specific as need be. So Step 3 remains necessary to point out because this error is made so often: if you want to disprove J, you don't do so by trying to disprove M. That's illogical. While M must defend itself, so must J, but don't try to disprove J by disproving M. I probably agree with you why M is disproven, but that doesn't disprove J.

See how silly atheists are! So much nonsense who can bear it?

I put to you that the "conscience" is a construct which can be better explained by psychology and neurology. When put in more scientific terms, the "exponential progression of conscience" actually becomes something more clear: natural evolution.

Whether you think conscience can be better explained by psychology and neurology is irrelevant. What matters is we observe it in motion which tells us there can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature or supernatural, if they exist. Moreover, you don't have a good explanation for psychology and neurology.

The exponential progression of conscience is just natural evolution fails in two ways:

1) Even if you first hypothesize it is explained by nature, it still proves we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural or supernatural.

2) That which does not have conscience or consciousness can't produce that which has conscience and consciousness. Can a bird house create a bird? Can a rock make itself into a human being? Preposterous. Therefore, God can form materials into the body over a long period of time (Gen. 2.7), but they can't do it themselves, nor create a single-celled replicating organism.

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon

Religious superstition does dismount all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men just as atheism does, since God is proven, but not any God, only God of the Bible. Jesus fulfills not on the claim necessary for the uncreated, but He proves it by His resurrection, miracles, prophecies fulfilled, and morality above all else. To these you present no challenge. Therefore, rid yourself of your own religion of self and idolatry of atheism, or whatever your flavor of the day is, which violates the laws of science, philosophy, natural piety, laws reputation.

There is no outward or inward moral virtue in denying the one true religion in Christ, for all things He said were made by Him and nothing that exists exists without Him having created it. He is the first and the last and all things sum up in Christ.

There is no other religion or world-view in which God comes down to us so we may go up to Him. That is love and His love leads to grace. That is light which leads to all truth.

Just know this then. Since you couldn't overturn the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach, then you don't have to say it out loud, but you are admitting that God exists and Jesus is God.

Praise the Lord!