Quote Originally Posted by DD2014 View Post
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!