Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it.
God is not invoked. Think. If nature can't have an infinite regress due to heat death and the exponential progression of conscience, then we know the uncreated exists since no other option exists than the uncreated. The uncreated is what we call God. Now find out who is God. Where has He personally revealed Himself to us?

They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.
Since as we have seen there is no assumption, but the evidence points to the uncreated Creator, then find out where He reveals Himself. Should His qualities be less than ours? As soon as they are, you know any claim to being God would be false. Therefore, all the above mentioned attributes would all be required, for as soon as they are less than our standards, then that claim of being God is false. An infinitely existing God, even outside time, would be all-knowing, all-present and all-powerful. There is no reasoning power you could employ to shake Him off the judgment you will occur by spending eternity in Hell and being eternally separated from Him if you refuse His saving grace and mercy bestowed through the atoning sacrifice on the cross, for forgiveness of sins and to give everlasting life.

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.
Why would He change His mind? His mind is perfect. All He does is perfect. A change of mind would indicate some uncertainty, imperfection, non-omnipotence. That He could change mind, doesn't mean He will or needs to. God is always righteous. Changing His mind is perhaps changing His objective morals, but His objective morals never change.

Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse: Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?
That option, if available, would never be employed since His mind, past, present and future is perfect. It is decided in the intuitive revelation of God and conclusion that is God without sweat, tears and doubt or need for alterations. This is the God you can trust, who responds righteously in all situations. Even though God could not erect obedience on the fallen angels, He had to create man whom He knew He could receive obedience through Christ.

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.
Appreciate the inherent contradiction and pompousness in this theory of yours. You're saying you have to be God to know if God exists, because even if there was one last thing man didn't know, man would need to know it in order to know if God exists. That seems parsimonious to me, because of your unwillingness to enter into a relationship with Christ, and thus take the dullardly road to perdition. Consecrating yourself in Christ would be the far more challenging, fruitful and deeper union you are unwilling to spend your resources on.

There is also a false humility in saying there is something you don't know yet, so maybe God doesn't exist. Such an attitude is highly pernicious and misleading, because despite knowing God exists because nature can't cause itself and He reveals Himself by proof of His resurrection, you enter into the world assuming things despite the evidence. So what else will accept as true which is clearly proven false? Scientists agree the singularity exists and that singularity can't cause itself. We go with the evidence. You are looking for a pipe dream and wasting your life for the holy grail of atheism. It's really a search for a justifiable rationalization of self-worship and self-indulgence. It's delusional. The definition of insanity is continuing to do that which produces no results. You still can't escape Hell with your heart of deceit. Nor can Satan.

Edward Lear's Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to 'Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.' Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn't you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine electrons. If you 'cut' gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumblies Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas. -Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
Oh yes, it is quite clear there is a terminator to infinite regress of the past because nature can't cause itself. Everything in nature has a cause as is true for the element of gold which never always existed. The reason why gold exists is due to the explosions of the stars. The reason why the full elemental table exists is because the universe is as big as it is. If it was any smaller some elements would not be have been created.

There is a doublestandard here is as well. And as soon as you have a doublestandard, you realize your teaching is false. Atheists claim the first single-celled organism could have come into being from processes other than which the models allow for. The models tell us 200 amino acids for 1 protein and 1000 proteins are required for life, but the models show us that not even 1 protein can come into being from 200 amino acids based on mixing all the interatomic interactions in the history of the universe. But the atheist claims it all stops with the atom without considering the possibility within atoms are quarks and smaller still are strings. The formation of an atom has a cause from these smaller parts. Dawkins mindlessly shuts his mind down by assuming how many times he cuts his meat. But that goes against the evidence. He invokes his rule and stops short of reality. To do so is selfish.

Not so well thought out eh?