4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Taksuru]

1.1.1 The exponential progression of conscience we observe tells us there will be no more sin and thus the perfection that we are moving towards. Hence, there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, otherwise we would not still be sinning by now.

As I pointed out--and you ignored, I may add--the notion of sin is not, in any way, universal. It is precisely because it is not universal that you cannot say there is an exponential progression of conscience. A hundred years ago, mistreating a person of African or Native American descent would not be 'sinful,' but today it would be. So, from the point of view of someone living a hundred years ago, concepts such as racial equality imply a decrease in conscience. Do you see my point? Morality is largely relative, and for that reason, it is wrong to say that we are becoming more and more moral. Cannibalism, for example, is regarded as bad and evil by many westerners, whereas there's quite a few tribes of Papua New Guinea that'd beg to differ. Who is to say who's right? The westerners, or the Papuans? Is cannibalism right or wrong? It is impossible to say, for ideas such as 'right' or 'wrong' depend on your cultural background. When you say that the world is becoming less sinful, some other person from some other culture would disagree and say it's becoming more sinful.

That said, you missed my point--I said that perfection does not imply lack of sin.

1.1.1.1 Since you overlooked the exponential progression of conscience in, your point made in 1.1.1.1 is invalid.

Since you cannot understand moral relativism, your critique of 1.1.1.1 is as dead wrong as your critique of 1.1.1.

1.1.1.2 Ditto.
1.1.1.3 Ditto.
1.1.1.4 Ditto; and God is not first assumed as you mistakenly thought.

My answer to this inanity is really the same: ditto, ditto, ditto. And I do not claim you presuppose God. I said that if you define 'perfection' as living in accordance with God's laws, then you are presupposing God. Big difference.

1.1.2 You have no moral compass. If you go to the dictionary you will find a definition of "sin" without the mention of a specific culture or a God,

Dictionary definitions don't interest me. Encyclopedias contain more valid information about religious concepts. Here's Wikipedia's treatment of sin: "Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. Commonly, the moral code of conduct is decreed by a divine entity (such as Yahweh or Allah in the Abrahamic religions)." The article goes on to mention that the related secular concepts are 'justice' and 'crime.' At any rate, you will have to admit that sin does carry a religious load. What more, 'sin' is any evil action, right? As I said, evil is not itself a universal concept, so why should sin be?

so for our purposes of the proof is adequate enough to simply say sin exists, otherwise we would not throw people in jail.

No, the reason why some societies throw people into jail are juridical and not based on morals. For sure, the juridical system can be informed by morality, but they are really separate. I could envision a society in which people are thrown into jail for doing what you'd call good. But I digress--even if criminals were incarcerated for doing 'evil' acts, you still have to tackle the problem that evil is relative to culture. Culture A might throw criminals in jail for eating fish, whereas culture B throws criminals in jail for not saluting the flag. Culture A does not imprison people for refusing to salute, and culture B does not sentence people to prison for eating fish. Do you see what I am hinting at? What is good and what is bad, or criminal and law-abiding, largely depends on culture rather than anything else.

Just because one society thinks something is not sinful, doesn't mean it is not, but we do know there are universal truths as all nations put their criminals in jail.

No, we do not know there is a universal moral truth. Not all societies do incarcerate their criminals. All societies punish them--but that has nothing to do with the fact that morality is relative. It has to do with the fact that all societies punish those who go against the norms of that society.

1.1.2.3 Since evil exists, e.g. taking down the twin towers, then sin exists.

I have said that evil does not exist. And the terrorists who took down Twin Towers thought they were doing the right thing. You might call 9/11 evil; Al-Qaida calls it good.

Sin exists, for we would not put people in jail.

The reasons for putting people in jail are practical. We can't have child rapists and murderers running around in the street--society would be ruined. For that reason, we lock them away. The juridical system attempts to enable society to work properly and is, philosophically speaking, not really related to the morals of the society. Often morals and law coincide, but they are not the same. It goes against the culture of many Americans to allow homosexuality to exist, and yet it does, and it is not illegal. In other words, gay people can live the life they want and have that right by law, even if the culture they live in disapprove of it. Law is not the same thing as morality; law is a way of making civilization run smoothly, not a way to enforce moral values.

You don't like that sin exists so you can sin since you might want to do something that is sinful, but if you claim it is not sin you think you can escape its penalty.

I believe in honourable and dishonourable actions. Tinzireans do not, I can ensure you, believe in sin. We have our own moral compass to tell us what is right and wrong, and it is not based on the notions of 'sin' or 'not sin.' It is based on the notions of honour and dishonour.

Whether you say child sacrifices and human sacrifices are not part of one's faith in Islam is irrelevant, since it is observed in practice by suicide mass-murderers, then it is part of their Koran.

They are martyrs, just like your cherished Christian martyrs. Paul died in the name of his religion, and so does countless of Islamic suicide bombers; sacrifice has no part in it. My great-uncle, sranen Rashameni Raichiku, died defending a temple from invaders. That was not a sacrifice, that was martyrdom. He slaid several of the foul dogs trying to profane the temple with his sword, even as they threw spears and fired arrows at him, even as his flesh was torn by their weapons. Similarly, the 9/11 terrorists died for their belief, as martyrs and heroes, not as sacrifices.

The kind of slavery before was unlike the slavery that one would try for today. Slavery in ancient times was just the lower class of people. Today, slavery is racism against blacks or others in our history.

Slaves are merely unpaid workers that you possess. You do not possess a paid worker; a slave, however, is your possession by law. Racism is not a part of the definition of slavery.

You're a bad guy that you would still support this.

I do not support racism against anyone, certainly not people of African descent, as I have dark skin myself.

You're a bad guy. Since sin exists as was shown and you could not show otherwise, and because it is vital to Step 1, then Step 1 stands and remains unchallenged.

I beg to differ. I have already told you about moral relativism.

2.1 You misread Step 2. It doesn't say everything has a cause except God, therefore God is the cause of everything. Rather, it says everything we observe has a cause in nature, therefore nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself then the only known possibility is it was caused by the uncaused Creator, logically speaking.

I did not misread it. It is a correct assesment. You say that God is that cherished uncaused Creator of yours by virtue of him being God. You say that 'being uncreated' is a part of the definition of God. Think of your step II as consisting of three parts:

i. Everything has a cause except for the primordial cause, the Creator.
ii. The Creator is Uncreated.
iii. God is, by definition, not created.
iv. For that reason, God is the creator of the Universe.

Do you see where it goes wrong? Well, first off, just because you say that God is uncreated, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is. You have to prove that God is not created, otherwise you are the one who is all the time repeating yourself without ever thinking. Second, even if you proved beyond doubt that God was uncreated, it does not follow he was the cause of the universe.

2.1.1 Bottom line you have no evidence for something happening all by itself like puff the magic dragon.

I need no evidence. The burden of proof is on you. I said that "it is very easy to set up a philosophical system which does not make room for causality." You have to show me why causality by necessity has to exist. My example was meant as a pointer, to show how a universe unconcerned with causality could work. Notice that, in my example, the illusion of cause and effect still remains, even if causality does not exist. Get the hint? No? Then let me tell you--maybe all those trillion examples of causes and effects you mention are illusions. As long as you do not prove that causality itself exists and is a valid concept, I do not need to take any of your first-case arguments seriously.

2.1.1.1 We are not concerned with fantasies, only that which which is evidenced. Since there are trillions of things with causes and we can't find anything that is without a cause, then the universe can't cause itself. Complex causation is still causation.

I clearly demonstrated that a universe in which causality does not exist is a possibility. As long as this possibility remains, it doesn't make a lick of difference if you say there are trillions of things with causes--you have to show me (and prove to me) that causality by necessity must exist.

2.1.1.1. There is no possibility for us to think causality is an illusion.

Okay, one more time, then:

i. Imagine a universe which branches off into an infinite number of paths every time something happens. Every time you drop a rock, that universe branches off into an infinite number of 'paths' or 'parallel timelines' or what have you, in which an infinite number of possible things happen after the rock is dropped.
ii. In some paths, the rock hangs in the air. In others, it flies away. In others, it doesn't fall, but the ground you're standing on moves up to meet it.
iii. To put it simply: what happens when you drop the rock is truly random.
iv. However, since the event that follows the rock-dropping occurs after you've let go of the rock, you will think that letting go of the rock caused that specific event to occur.
v. So if the rock turns into a hen in one timeline when you drop it, you will think there is a causal connection between dropping the rock and it becoming a hen.

Ergo, an illusion of causality.

2.2 You are misrepresenting Step 2 of the proof by saying God is the exception.

He is, by your own admission, an exception. God is the exception to the rule 'everything in nature has a cause.'

The proof God is uncreated is because nothing in nature happens all by itself.

This is bizarre and illogical. Let us divide it up into two steps.

i. Nothing in nature happens all by itself.
ii. Therefore, God happens all by himself.

Do you, as I do, see the lack of logic?

[Churchwork]

As was said already, sin is universal, for all nations put people in jail. Some may differ on what is sin, but everyone accepts there is sin. It was sinful to mistreat native Americans and Africans then as it is now. Just because an evil nation takes upon itself evil practices, doesn't make it right. Just because some nations differ on some things, doesn't make it so there is no morality whatsoever against sin. So there is still an exponential progression of conscience. While you see our future possibly increasing in cannibalism, there is no actual evidence for this as being a better state or even increasing. Killing people and eating them is just wrong. Your conscience is so dead it can't recognize this. Mankind is moving away from such things. Perfection is by definition without sin. Anything you do in life stained with sin shows you are not yet perfected. The definition of sin we are using as was already said is that of not presuming a God first. This is stated in the 4 Step Proof for God already. If sin is not a universal concept then people who murder in any society should not be put in jail. By these actions it is accepted there is evil, whether you want to admit it or not. We see such evil in men's actions as well the response to those actions against such evil. The only reason you want to discount evil is because you like to commit evil and want to pretend there is no consequence for your sin. Laws are based on morals, relative or not. All societies punish murderers, so there is a morality there happening. Who can deny it? It is not just that murder is against the norms of the society but that it is punished because it is a universally accepted evil sin. It is the norm of society to punish murder because it is a sin. It is accepted what the Muslims did was wrong in mass murdering thousands of people in the Twin Towers. While you think this might be a good thing, it only shows how sick your heart is. You have no moral compass. You're a bad guy.

Even you with your dead conscience consider murder and rape to be wrong. If it is not wrong then there is no such thing as sin, so you are admitting sin exists under your breath. Such laws in place reflect the morality of a society, and these are universal morals, for there is no society that condones such things, even if it is practiced in secret. That's why they can never admit openly this is just behavior. It is dishonorable to commit sin. When you murder someone, even you admit it is dishonorable, not for no reason at all, but down inside you know it is a sin.

Christians do not blow themselves up when we are martyred. We are martyred by people who are hostile to Christ taking action against us. The difference is Christians have the multiple eyewitness testimony of God on earth being resurrected. Whereas other religions die for something they can't prove.

Slavery was due to racism against the blacks. Nobody denies it. You said you support slavery as possibly acceptable. Yet it is founded on racism. So you contradict yourself. Again, it is just your dead conscious speaking forth.

This is why I am giving you another infraction. I said we know the uncreated Creator exists because nothing in nature happens all by itself; ergo, there is only one available know possibility, there must be an uncaused cause the uncreated Creator. But you repeated yet again that I said God exists because God is uncreated. No. That is not the approach I am using at all. Christians don't use that approach. When you repeat your error instead of responding to what I said, with the burden of the proof on you, this is what gets you infractions for your belligerency and obstinacy.

Since an uncreated Creator exists, we need to find out who He is. He is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ and He is fully proven by His resurrection. Since there is no basis for wild assumptions like cause and effect are illusions, therein lies your problem you admit you don't need to operate based on the evidence. But Christians and scientists do work by the evidence, which says there are trillions of things with cause and effects, and you could not find anything to support your idea of illusions or that there could be something in nature without a cause. Hence, it is fully proven causation exists, because nothing happens all by itself. That's the only reason you need to accept the truth. Your fantasy illustrations don't count, because you have nothing to support such whimsical ideas: you said "imagine this..."

God is not the exception because we don't make any claim about a God prior to observing nature. It is in the observation of nature that we then come to the realization that there is an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is what we call God who created the universe. There is no other name one is called the uncaused cause than God; that's what we mean when we say God. He is the intelligent designer.

God does not happen all by himself. He always existed. There is a difference. The latter is reality, the former is twisted thought. If you always existed then you don't "happen".

[kwikee]

Hi,

Your argument is interesting but I wouldn't say it's nearly perfect. I'm fairly sure I have the actual Perfect Proof but with very different results than what you had. I should point out, that I've never heard this evidence anywhere else, and I don't believe it is addressed in any holy book. It requires no intuition, no leaps of faith, no science, no double-standards. I feel it is a relatively simple argument.

I sort of agree that people who call themselves agnostics are usually not all that different than athiests. Where athiests try to use what we know from Science to make conclusions, I find what we don't know yet and what Science or Religion may never explain is far more indicative of the Truth. I am definitely an agnostic and not an atheist, and I have a solid foundation for it.

Before I begin though I have three things to point out;
1. My view is not that God doesn't exist, but that God did not write any holy books, so while it may seem vague at first, the application and conclusion will come in the latter half. I call it Practical Agnosticism. :)

2. While I may not touch upon a few of your steps with great detail, my evidence will invalidate them anyway. I feel that rather than trying to deconstruct your view, it's more effective to just go ahead and present my own for the most part. It works on a bit of a higher plain than your proof anyway.

3. My background is Islam (I left a few years ago), not Christianity. It simply means I am comfortable speaking of Islamic beliefs so I may bring them up for comparison.

A minor thing I want to mention is that in your "perfect proof" you state that Islam teaches its followers to sacrifice their children as "suicide mass-murderers." This is not something that is taught in Islam, so these are not real muslims. You say the people leading the Crusades and Inquisition were not real Christians but the suicide bombers are real Muslims. Please correct this error.

---

As for your four-step proof, here's a basic outline of how I will treat them:

Step 1: I'm not going to touch upon the age of the Earth or mankind. I have no reason to contest it. I don't understand why sinning was mentioned before the Bible was in your argument, but it doesn't matter. Sin is a Biblical concept, it's not something that can be easily factored into proof before proving its merit. But regardless of how old the universe is according to however many people, my evidence does not change. This isn't "dancing around it", it's not seeing the significance of this step.

Step 2: I will not contest that everything in the universe has a cause and/or is created. I won't contest that God the creator is Himself uncreated. There is no need for me to. I don't see where the conclusion that Christ has to be that God came from though, as far as I could see it was arbitrary.

Step 3: This one is important. While I find it is unnecessary to argue against your first two steps, the biggest flaw in all pro-religious arguments is that the author attempts to link God to their holy book. God did not write the Bible or the Qur'an or Torah and this is the basis of my argument. But for the sake of making things simpler, I will agree to the following traits of God:
- God is all powerful
- God is all knowing
- God might be infinitely merciful and loving (but since this seems to be such a controversial subject and one that may conflict with my evidence, I won't make it mandatory)

I see no reason to believe or abide by the idea of God being a Trinity or Jesus having anything to do with anything -- these are aspects specific to the Bible and therefore should only be accounted for AFTER the Bible has been proven true.

Step 4: It sounds to me like this step is addressing whether God or a creation of God created us. There's also mention that there can't be a cycle of gods creating gods, I believe. Yes, this doesn't stop God from being the source and one uncreated Creator. But I'm having just a bit of trouble understanding this part... It doesn't matter anyway.

I'll revisit these "proofs" after presenting my own.

---

Onto the proof!

Phase 1: Proving Agnosticism
a) To start there are three quotes that state easily-provable facts:

"The only thing I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates

"There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, through his character Sherlock Holmes

Socrates' statement is the ultimate statement of modesty, demonstrating that he understands Shakespeare's statement; that there will always be so much more out there we don't know than what they do. Bizarre, wonderful, terrifying things -- did you know there's a squid bigger than the giant squid that can change colours instantaniously and has hooks instead of suckers along its enormous tentacles? Or a lizard that shoots blood from its eyeballs to scare predators off? Sorry for the tangent, but that's awesome. Doyle states that we should learn to accept things that seem otherwise ridiculous when all other possibilities have been exhausted completely.

b) Religious arguments generally assume that there are two things of significance in the universe. God and Man. If God can be proven, according to these views, than one's holy book is by proxy, true. As I said, I won't contest that God exists, is uncreated and is omnipotent. The problem is the assumption that if God created us, or created whatever created us, then God wrote the Bible.

But there's a problem with that. It's too much of an assumption. Socrates states that he knows nothing because he is aware that when speaking of any soft of Metaphysical aspect of the universe, there's so much we can't see. It's very wise and modest. Now, as Shakespeare said, there's more to the universe than we can ever dream of. By this point you're probably thinking I'm going to bring up aliens now... yeah, I kind of have to. There's no reason they can't exist, Doyle said so too! But it's not just aliens, so don't worry. The Bible and Qur'an give us fantastic examples of things that could be out there; the angels, devils, Satan, jinn, I recall a demonic whore being mentioned and something called an anti-christ (It's in Islam too, actually). So even without aliens, the Bible presents the possibility of creatures that cannot be accounted for, creating an absolutely unfixable problem. You mentioned in your proofs that people have argued that aliens created us and God created them, but that isn't my argument. God created us, sure, but who is to say He wrote or inspired the Bible as well? There is infinite possibility out there about who wrote the Bible, if not God than something masquerading as God. This would mean the chance of God writing/inspiring the Bible is one in infinity, ie. practically zero. This cannot be disproven because there is too much about the universe that we do not know, and we can't eliminate them no matter how improbable they are.

It is pretty clear now that an Agnostic view towards religion is the only modest and reasonable view to take. How can infinite possibility be countered? Now I can take it one step further.

Phase 2: Application of Agnostic Evidence

It is possible to say one can rely on faith or intuition or God's holy traits to identify the true author (let's just call God the author instead of being technical with inspiration) of the Bible, but it isn't possible. The Bible and you claim that people can use their logic and intellect to choose the path of Truth, ie. that the identity of the author is provable. But my evidence demonstrates that it is not provable, there is no way to eliminate the potentially infinite beings and things in the universe. You could claim that only God could have written the Bible because of its contents but I do believe Christians believe Satan authored the Qur'an and both books sound very similar. But why would I have such high standards? There could be no higher stakes, we're talking about lives and souls, eternal or otherwise! If I devoted myself to an invisible being who claims I owe them my existance, I want to be 100% sure they are who they claim to be. Clearly it is impossible to be certain.

This, as I said earlier, is an unsolvable problem, and it's about to get worse. Simply put, the previous claim is an error, a mistake, so I evidently just outsmarted 'God'. But as I said earlier, I agree that God is omnipotent, all-knowing and generally perfect, so God is infinitely smarter than me -- I know nothing. So if God does not make mistakes and the Bible has this mistake, the Bible could not be authored by God. There is one possibility that God did in fact author the Bible or Qur'an, etc. and that would be that God is lying in them, since they can't be the Truth. If they were the Truth there would be a paradox, God making the mistake of saying we can be certain when God cannot make mistakes -- it can be eliminated because it is impossible.

It can be said that God wouldn't allow such a book if it weren't the truth. But there's a book there claiming it, and another and another. It can be said that the traits of God can prove that these books are true (your mention of Jesus' proof of resurrection comes to mind), but we get these traits from the very book in question, we can't take its worth for truth.

To accept the Bible is to ignore our understanding of the universe and ourselves, specifically that we don't know anything about the universe. But the Bible tells us to use our minds and intellects, does it not? So it's telling us to do something that would prove it wrong. Is there sin in my argument? I used my logic and reasoning, as the Bible told me to, but I didn't end up a Christian. How could I go to Hell for spotting this unfixable error? This only further adds to the paradox.

With this problem before us, scientific evidence or ontological arguments or a hybrid such as your proofs all become red herrings. The Bible dooms itself by claiming to be authored by a perfect being. There is no paradox if the Bible is lying. Why would a real God make this all so complicated anyway? Though I didn't mention it before, I think Occam's Razor applies very well to this situation.
Phase 3: Back to the Perfect Proofs

Step 1: Since the Bible cannot be true, the concept of Sin is irrelevant. Sin is something mentioned in books such as the Bible which come from unknown sources, and therefore have no foundation for being believed. Crime is not Sin, and can therefore not be used to measure our modern level of Sin. It also cannot be used to measure the age of the Earth and therefore there is no basis to claiming the earth is 6000 years old. Step 1 is a red herring.

Step 2: God is God, nothing can happen without a cause. God has no cause. This is still all fine and dandy.

Step 3: The real God did not write the Bible and therefore the Bible is lying, or God is lying and the Bible does not contain the Truth. I've heard the argument that God wouldn't allow such things, but there are two pretty solid religions I can think of to prove that incorrect. I've heard that God created us in his image, but this information comes from the Bible, an untruthful source. God does not need to care about us because that isn't a requirement to be all powerful and uncreated. God does not need to send his Son because that is not a requirement to be all powerful and uncreated. God does not need to be a Trinity because that is once again not a requirement. God does not need to give us any sort of religion, God can simply be God yet people decieve themselves into believing that God must have these additional traits.

Jesus doesn't have to be God to be resurrected either, doesn't have to be God to have good conduct, and therefore is not without compare and is not perfect. Am I calling him a liar? If Jesus is the one who inspired the Bible, then yes. Is this a sin? The Bible says it is, but that's a lie.

Step 4: God could have created us, or created the thing that created us. But the Bible was not written by that same God since it contains at least one mistake. It is not necessary for supernatural beings to conform to your 6000-year rule. The Bible itself gives examples of these beings and once again creates a paradox for itself.

---

As far as I can see this is perfect proof against the Bible, I can find no flaw or solution to the problems I present. I look forward to your rebuttal.

- Azim Khan

[Churchwork]

A minor thing I want to mention is that in your "perfect proof" you state that Islam teaches its followers to sacrifice their children as "suicide mass-murderers." This is not something that is taught in Islam, so these are not real muslims.

I believe they are the deeper Muslims based on text of the Koran and other important Muslim texts.

aliens now... yeah, I kind of have to. There's no reason they can't exist

They don't exist. There are over 800 factors we know of that require life to exist on another planet. When factored into all the planets in the universe, there is no chance of aliens.

God created us, sure, but who is to say He wrote or inspired the Bible as well?

By the proof of the resurrection which you can't explain away naturalistically.

Christians believe Satan authored the Qur'an and both books sound very similar.

Not at all. Jesus died on the cross in the Bible, and some guy in a cave all by himself six centuries later said He didn't. Historians examine primary sources.

these books are true (your mention of Jesus' proof of resurrection comes to mind), but we get these traits from the very book in question, we can't take its worth for truth.

We can take some things to be true because almost all skeptical scholars accept them (for good reason): 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) disciples believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically, 3) Paul was converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected, 4) James, half-brother of Jesus, was converted after believing he saw Jesus resurrected, 5) the tomb was empty. No naturalistic theory can account for all 5 facts.

Jesus said His resurrection would be the number one proof He is God. He said this is the sign of Jonah and He would raise His temple on the 3rd day.

no basis to claiming the earth is 6000 years old.

The Bible not does the 4 Step Proof claim this. The definition of sin being used is the dictionary definition without any mention of God.

Therefore, you have no grounding in agnosticism.

[kwikee]

I believe they are the deeper Muslims based on text of the Koran and other important Muslim texts.

Nowhere does it say you're allowed to commit suicide for the sake of killing infidels. Your perfect proof states this as an example of human sacrifice. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith mention KILLING infidels, but not suicide bombing-- as I said before, your mention of it in your perfect proof is absolutely incorrect. It's source for the reference to suicide bombings in the link you gave is not even cited.

They don't exist. There are over 800 factors we know of that require life to exist on another planet. When factored into all the planets in the universe, there is no chance of aliens.

God could make aliens, God can do anything, can't he? Extraterrestrial life means life not on this planet. By definition, angels and devils can be called aliens. As I said before, the Bible provides examples of what could have wrote the Bible.

As for your 800 factors, if you really insist on using numbers than try this. There are 200 to 400 billion stars in this galaxy. There's a photo called Hubble Deep Field which depicts something like 1:500,000th of the sky and contains almost 3000 galaxies. 200,000,000,000 x 3000 x 500,000 -- with that many stars you don't believe there could be another planet like Earth?

Not at all. Jesus died on the cross in the Bible, and some guy in a cave all by himself six centuries later said He didn't. Historians examine primary sources.

I didn't mean that the Qur'an and Bible say the same thing exactly, but they say a lot of the same things. The Qur'an believes that part about Jesus being God and not a prophet of God like Muhammad was a man-made change. I meant they both read like holy books and teach many similar things. Besides, muslims like to give the example that Muhammad was illiterate, and therefore would not have known all of the biblical stories repeated in the Bible. The story of Muhammad's life is far better documented and more widely accepted as fact than Jesus' very existance. Even if what he was saying is false, it's at least known how and when and to whom he said it in great detail. Wasn't the Bible not even written as a first-hand account? Did the authors themselves see the empty cave?

We can take some things to be true because almost all skeptical scholars accept them (for good reason): 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) disciples believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically, 3) Paul was converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected, 4) James, half-brother of Jesus, was converted after believing he saw Jesus resurrected, 5) the tomb was empty. No naturalistic theory can account for all 5 facts.

Here are two theories that account for those facts. 1) Jesus wasn't human or was revived by some superhuman being that does not necessarily have to be God. Or 2) None of that ever really happened and it was all made up by whomever authored the Bible.

Are there sources outside of the Bible or Qur'an that say it happened?

The Bible not does the 4 Step Proof claim this. The definition of sin being used is the dictionary definition without any mention of God.

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Oxford's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

• noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

Divine Law sounds like mention of God, the secondary, godless definitions of the word clearly derived from the primary definitions. So without Divine Law given from God there is no Sin and my argument stands.

You did not touch upon my main argument at all. My agnosticism is still solidly grounded upon said argument.

- Azim Khan

[Churchwork]

Nowhere does it say you're allowed to commit suicide for the sake of killing infidels. Your perfect proof states this as an example of human sacrifice. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith mention KILLING infidels, but not suicide bombing-- as I said before, your mention of it in your perfect proof is absolutely incorrect. It's source for the reference to suicide bombings in the link you gave is not even cited.

Suicide bombings is killing others. Therefore, the burden would be on you to show blowing yourself up for Allah is not allowed.

God could make aliens, God can do anything, can't he? Extraterrestrial life means life not on this planet. By definition, angels and devils can be called aliens. As I said before, the Bible provides examples of what could have wrote the Bible.

Angels are in heaven and the fallen angels are in 2nd heaven. Not another planet. Life can't exist on another planet because the laws of nature prohibit it with over 800 factors making it impossible.

As for your 800 factors, if you really insist on using numbers than try this. There are 200 to 400 billion stars in this galaxy. There's a photo called Hubble Deep Field which depicts something like 1:500,000th of the sky and contains almost 3000 galaxies. 200,000,000,000 x 3000 x 500,000 -- with that many stars you don't believe there could be another planet like Earth?

The calculations done by Hugh Ross suggest even more than that, and plugging his 800 variables make life on another planet impossible.

I didn't mean that the Qur'an and Bible say the same thing exactly, but they say a lot of the same things. The Qur'an believes that part about Jesus being God and not a prophet of God like Muhammad was a man-made change. I meant they both read like holy books and teach many similar things. Besides, muslims like to give the example that Muhammad was illiterate, and therefore would not have known all of the biblical stories repeated in the Bible. The story of Muhammad's life is far better documented and more widely accepted as fact than Jesus' very existance. Even if what he was saying is false, it's at least known how and when and to whom he said it in great detail. Wasn't the Bible not even written as a first-hand account? Did the authors themselves see the empty cave?

The Koran says Jesus is just a prophet, not God. That's all the difference in the world. I have a total of 45 early sources on Jesus. How many do you have on Muhammad? The Bible was written by firsthand accounts. Why think otherwise? The disciples ran to the cave, yes. You're searching but you're not finding any holes. Keep searching.

Here are two theories that account for those facts. 1) Jesus wasn't human or was revived by some superhuman being that does not necessarily have to be God. Or 2) None of that ever really happened and it was all made up by whomever authored the Bible.

Jesus said He was God, so that would make Jesus a liar. That would mean He lied to the disciples and the disciples were deceived by this evil god. That's called gnosticism in which God is the creator but allowed an evil creator to create this universe and humanity. But all you need to do is ask ask yourself would a loving God do that? Would a loving God allow God-consciousness in our spirits knowing we were created by an evil spirit? That would, in fact, make God evil to allow that, therefore, you theory is self-contradictory.

On your second theory, there were 40 authors over 1500 years and no critical scholars go the route these individuals didn't exist and in Scripture, there are many, not just the original 12 Apostles, but many other people mentioned in all kinds of places and situations. There is just too much multiple corroboration. Early first century church fathers, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, knew Peter and John. The church fathers recorded the martyrdom of the Apostles. It's one thing such as a Joseph Smith to make up stuff or Muhammad to make up stuff, but when you get all these writers in the New Testament in agreement and fellowshipping together confirming each other's thoughts and eyewitness testimony to ensure they have the right gospel, your theory seems silly and fanciful. Enemy attestation by the Jews don't even try your approach. Nobody even suggested your ideas in the first several centuries.

Are there sources outside of the Bible or Qur'an that say it happened?

Yes, these outside sources all well documented and claim Jesus died on the cross and that followers of Jesus believed they saw Him resurrected such as Josephus.

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Oxford's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

• noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

"1. a. offense against moral law [e.g. society]. 2. Serious offence." I prefer "acquiescence to temptation."

Divine Law sounds like mention of God, the secondary, godless definitions of the word clearly derived from the primary definitions. So without Divine Law given from God there is no Sin and my argument stands.

You gave two primary definitions without mention of God. I am not disputing some of the dictionary definitions say sin is transgressions of God's law. But you shouldn't deny the other definitions that don't make mention of God.

You did not touch upon my main argument at all. My agnosticism is still solidly grounded upon said argument.

- Azim Khan

I touched upon all your points. Why think otherwise? Unless you can show it. Your agnosticism has no foundation, since nature can't cause itself, so it requires that which is uncaused. Pretty simple.

[Adam]

Really Troy banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.
(Thankyou for allowing editing it is very useful)

In the course of your many debates about this "proof" I am sure you have become familiar with the term "Special Pleading."

(for readers: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special_pleading)

This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.

For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.

Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.

These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such enquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.

Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.

Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".

Summary - Special Pleading
"Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"

Circular Reasoning 1
1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists

2) And Is Jesus

3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected

4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)

5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists

Circular Reasoning 2
1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence

Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.

Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.

[Churchwork]

banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.

How were you able to post this post if I banned you for false teaching? You're just trying to deceitful. You got an infraction for false teaching, but you don't get banned for it.

This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.

None of the points of the proof depend on assuming God exists first. Therefore, the reason why someone doesn't accept the proof is because it is their own free will and would prefer to go to Hell. Such irrationality and wishful thinking is special pleading, just hoping God doesn't exist so there is no accountability for your actions. You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this. I am not here to cater to repetitive self-declarations, for they are mindless.

For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.

The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given in the proof that had no religion or God mentioned as part of the definition. You obviously didn't read the proof. Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring. You're like a broken record.

The mechanism can't be entirely physical, since nature can't cause itself. So there must be the uncreated which is supernatural. You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.

Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.

Step 2 doesn't jump to any conclusion. Embedded throughout the 4 Steps is the Minimal Facts Approach which proves Jesus is the God because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for His resurrection. This is a physical fact-a physical proof. The uncreated is proven by the physical proof that nothing in nature happens all by itself, so nature can't cause itself; therefore, the uncreated exists and this is whom we call God. You may have heard of Him through the millennia. He makes Himself readily understood and accessible even to you so you are without excuse. The Bible itself is a physical proof as well, for textual criticism on physical paper and ink have recorded the eyewitnesses testimonies right back to the source. Textual criticism is a very precise field of work. They can take the 25,000 Biblical manuscripts and identify the originals comparing one to the next all the way back. The more documents the better.

These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such inquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.

Your problem is you can't find any circular reasoning, for if you could, you would have been able to do so by now, you would think. But yourself, you suffer circular reasoning because you have assumptions which you can't back up, so all you can do is repeat yourself in a circle, because you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.

Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.

It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction. That stifles the conversation, because it is just mindless repetition without you making an effort to find evidence or to repent and relent a you realize you got nothing. So you're just being obstinate, but you know that. And so you can see Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.

Your behavior seems fake and pretentious to say the least without nothing underlying your accusation.You think this is a gambit, but God said it this proof and has always been there since the dawn of man. Indeed, God has a great advantage and so do those who are in Christ who give into reality and don't deny it as you do. This is not a game, but if it were, it would be already won, because I have already died in Christ. It is an accomplished fact. And there is no greater power than resurrection with Christ in the Holy Spirit and to have eternal life, for not only is it eternal blessings, but it is an ability to know God and have a relationship with Him, that which you are without. You sound frustrated lately which is why you are getting vaguer and vaguer in your comments. That's how Satan will tend to work, when he can't get anywhere with specifics. He'll work with vagaries. God established the proof and it is so simple. So don't make game of it and belittle it with endless vain words. That's just vanity of vanities!

Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".

Scientists don't think gravity just happens all by itself. You're delusional. However complicated gravity is, we observe what we know of it to abide in the law of cause and effect. You know that, but you shut your mind down to reality, so seek to alter reality unscientifically. It's really quite twisted your mindset. The law of cause and effect always abides in nature (what you call immutable)-for that is the preponderance of evidence that we have with nothing to suggest otherwise. Very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist. How accessible God makes Himself! Praise the Lord!

It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence (not even an iota) for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next. I don't think I needed to say you are stupid for saying something could happen all by itself in nature. You said it yourself.

You are special pleading, indeed, when you shut your mind down to trillions of cause and effects holding out for the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God. And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time. You've become a monotone or clanging bell.

Summary - Special Pleading
"Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"

Nature proves it can't always have existed, due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does, and nature would have experienced far greater heat death. And of course, unconsciousness and that without a conscience can't produce that which has consciousness and a conscience. Can a bird house make a bird? The logic is clear and unrefuted. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.

Circular Reasoning 1
1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists
2) And Is Jesus
3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected
4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)
5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists

The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible doesn't use your claim God exists therefore God exists. We know Jesus is God because the text meets the highest of historical standards for ancient documents and multiple corroboration in history. Therefore, you can trust some things in the text such as the fact that Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and his creeds he got from the Apostles who said they say Jesus resurrected. That's why most skeptical scholars concede these points (for the breadth of the people and places involved), and forward the discussion to an explanation of what could account for their genuine beliefs they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer who won 245 court cases in a row in the Guinness Book of Records, said that the best case he has ever seen is for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. A favorite Christian who is also a lawyer is John Warwick Montgomery. He's been on the John Ankerberg Show.

Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.

Circular Reasoning 2
1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence

The 1st law of thermodynamics says the universe will never cease exist, so again, you are propose something, the universe will cease to exist, contrary to the evidence.

What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.

Why are you giving this "Circular Reasoning 2"--it's circular. It's your circular nonsense.

I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe was not always existing. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.

Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.

Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.

Since you couldn't show any special pleading and couldn't overturn the above points, as they have been discussed with you before, then you are still special pleading.

I don't ban for spelling errors, unless of course I guess, if it is egregious and out of control.

Each time you get an infraction it is explained why and has a time limit on it. If you are banned it will be for valid reason. I'll apply the above mentioned infractions now to your account.

You're getting more and more ignorant, and you can probably tell that about yourself.

Why not come to the table with a sincere and honest seeking heart, and if the evidence takes some place then be willing to go there.

[Adam]

I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.

You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this.

That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.

The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given......You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition

Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring.

Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.

Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.

Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.
Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.

You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.

There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.

Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.

nature can't cause itself.

I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.

It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction.

Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?

Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.

They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.
Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.

Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.
Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.

It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next.....the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God.

And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time.

Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.

I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?

I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.

The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.

"the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.

No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.

Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.

This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer

I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.

What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.

Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.

I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe did not always exist. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.

Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.

You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
Man has not existed for eternity
Is not clearly less sinful
Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.

More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.

Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.......you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.

I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.

[Churchwork]

I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.

Words are meant for a reason. Banning is banning. Moderation is moderation. There is no moderation that is a banning. You are just being careless with your words because you are trying to be deceitful. #3 Carelessness.

That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.

Everything you presented in that post was repeating what you had said before in a previous post, thus not dealing with the responses handed to you. And you give no indication of an opening summary, but you said, the reason you were banned (which you weren't) was because you are agnostic whom "come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to" for Christians. But you have said this before and failed before to show this allegation. In your post you don't show it either or present arguments for your case.

Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.

It doesn't matter what definition you want to use, for the 4 Step Proof is committed to the definition that is without first assuming God. This is already stated in the Proof, we have already talked about it, so why overlook this fact? This is the answer which you keep shutting your mind down to, so you get an infraction for being a mindless drone. #6 Unspecific.

The reason you are repeating yourself mindlessly is because you are being ignorant and shutting your mind down to reality of the Proof. There is actually no better word to describe the condition. The word is "sin." Accept it.

Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.

All crimes are due to sin. Whether the sin is big or small it is still a sin. Therefore, since crime doesn't happen all by itself and we can see all crimes are due to sin, we are confident sin exists. It would take a very evil man even you to admit that sin doesn't exist. That only shows you how corrupted your heart is and why Hell was created for those such as yourself.

Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.

No matter the punishment for the crime, the crime exists because of sin.

Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.

You admit sin exists so stop arguing against it. For the purpose of the Proof since sin exists, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent he still does due to the exponential progression of conscience. We are only using the objective morals across all societies that deem something to be a crime to indicate the cause being a sin. The breaking of a law is the crime, but the breaking of the law doesn't happen all by itself. It is due to sin, for a sin is acquiescence to temptation to do something wrong.

There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.

You haven't been able to show any premises. I have responded to all your points showing you your mistaken assumptions. Therefore, instead of responding in kind, you just declare your assertion mindlessly. #1 Bearing False Witness.

Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.

For the purpose of the Proof it does not depend on how it comes about, only that we observe in nature. And because we observe it in nature, we know it is really happening and can use it as evidence to show us what it is pointing to, that nature couldn't have always been existing. Your mistaken assumption is an epistemology argument, which has no bearing on the ontological argument of the proof. It is irrelevant how it comes to be for sake of the Proof, but we do observe it happening.

I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.

#5 Overassuming. We have talked about this before. Your claiming you have to be God to know if God exists, but that is impossible, since you know you did not always exist or were uncreated. Therefore, all you need is a preponderance of evidence and we have that with trillions of things with causes in nature and nothing shown to be without a cause.

Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?

#1 False Accuser. It can hardly be said it is in dispute, for you only repeat yourself, rather than dealing with the responses. I am just repeating myself to your repetitions. You need to respond to the points, for example, it is impossible for you to be God. You have presented no lines of thought that contradict the proof. You're actually agreeing with the Proof and condemning yourself to Hell by rejecting it. The infraction, therefore, is fully justified and warranted to help you realize your condition.

They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.

You're misreading Step 2. God is proven not just in Step 2 in the area it is addressing, but Step 1 also, for you need to show not just the universe can't happen all by itself, but it can't always be existing in the natural. Step 4 is required because there can be the argument of infinite regress prior to the universe. Step 3 is needed because the main argument used against God of the Bible is bearing false witness against Him. Of course that is no argument, but Step 3 is stated to address it a serious issue. If the sin of bearing false witness was not the main method we would only need a 3 Step Proof. Since atheists/agnostics/Muslims/Hindus/etc. feel this is a valid argument, Step 3 shows it is not.

Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.

Special pleading is wrong, so Step 4 disallows special pleading you can just assume infinite regress of gods or multiple gods, for there would be heat death and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, there is the uncreated Creator. If you want to argue multiple uncreated that argument fails because there is nothing to justify God+1. Whatever the outcome, it is still God and God creating which destroys your argument for an always existing universe. You'd be contradicting yourself. Which is doubleminded.

Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.

You didn't say what that question is you posed so it is irrelevant, but your point fails, since you can't contradict yourself when you argue. That is a certain way of arguing that is unethical. That is not a valid form of logic. The point of Step 3 is don't misrepresent the God of the Bible. Whatever argument you want to use, if it misrepresents God, then your argument fails out the gate. You'd be arguing against something else, not God of the Bible.

Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.

Between you and me let's forget about the money then. Since you don't point out any flaws as of yet, then doesn't that indicate you are mistaken? How posts has it been now, and the best you can do is repeat already disproven ideas (which were already presented by previous posters to you).

Maybe your lust for money disallows you from being wrong.

Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.

#1 Bearing False Witness. God never claimed to happen all by Himself. He claims He always existed. You are violating Step 3 of the Proof by arguing against something else that is not God. Boring! Do you see how mindless your argument is when you start from a mistaken assumption? You have no option of being God, but if God exists, He can be God. He can prove all things and hold out for the last thing man did not know for Him to be God. If that were His approach of showing and proving He knows all things.

I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?

#1 Bearing False Witness. Step 2 shows something in nature can't happen all by itself, so you are sinning bearing false witness when you said, "I am not assuming there is something uncaused in nature - You however, are." Do realize how unethical you are being? You violating the prophetic word of your unethical behavior in #6 Unspecific where a person contradicts himself with a doubletongue and holds two sides of the story. You just quoted me saying, it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature...." You keep arguing for something happening in nature all by itself throughout your posts, for you keep arguing against Step 2 of the proof, the preponderance of evidence for trillions of things with causes, and you admit you have to be God to know if God exists as you hold out for a proof something can happen all by itself. That's crazy. I believe you are being purposefully unethical and immoral. I have never met an ethical atheists or agnostic.

I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.

The preponderance of evidence is proof, and your argument is faulty because you insist you have to be God to know if God exists. That's just self-worship. Your "assuming something uncaused in nature" is not more logical or reasonable because of the preponderance of evidence. It is quite clear no such discovery will ever be made with trillions of causes in nature and no evidence for something happening all by itself. You lose. For something to happen all by itself like magic is senseless. But God creating out of His glory is completely sensible and full of life and purpose, for He creates out of His glory to have a relationship with His children and damns those such yourself who want to be eternally separated from God. We have His justice, love, holiness, mercy and everlasting friendship.

The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.

You don't say why it is senseless. It would seem you not having a reason is itself senseless. But if the universe is eternal in the future it is because God wants an eternal relationship. It would be senseless if it always existed in the past, for how can that which is without consciousness and conscience create that with consciousness and conscience. Can a bird house create a bird? Of course not. You're embarrassing yourself. #5 Self-declaring.

"the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.

I am not saying gravity takes hold everywhere and did not come from something else or will not change into something else, but all we do see are causes, no non-causes in nature. You need to overturn the preponderance of evidence, but since you don't think you need to and it is the key to the Proof, then you are saying you don't need to disprove the Proof to disprove the Proof. That's goofy. I would be happy to remove any infraction you incurred if you could show it was not correct. The infraction serves a purpose, so you are wasting your time not heeding them. When discussing a particular infraction, please be specific and quote the infraction given so I can address it with you. Don't assume I know what you are talking about, after all as we have seen you like to bear false witness and change the story. Be specific.

Stop complaining about infractions but not showing they are unwarranted. #9 Frivolousness.

No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.

You are getting the cart before the horse. Since the uncreated is proven, I look to see who is the uncreated. Jesus claimed to be the uncreated as God. He proved it by His resurrection which you could not disprove the multiple eyewitness testimony. So you are admitting Jesus is God, but you are free to reject Him which you do which is why you are going to Hell. Your choice. Nobody to blame but yourself. Since none can compare to Christ, Jesus is God by His resurrection. You're special pleading instead of seeing you can't disprove the resurrection and can't show anyone else is better, for a loving God personally pays for ours sins which only God could do. Every other religion or belief system is works based, but how can a sinner save himself? Every other belief is delusional.

Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.

Step 4 proves the uncreated exists and who this is. It is Jesus and He says He is God and proves He is uncreated by His resurrection. So God exists. You could not overturn the argument of Step 4. If you don't understand, I would be happy to repeat it for the umpteenth time in our discussions.

I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.

Since the account itself is proven by the highest of historical standards and preserved physically on paper, it proves the resurrection of Jesus since you admit you can't find a naturalistic explanation. You would have to throw out every historical person in history according to your approach which is just mindless belligerency. People don't doubt Tiberius lived but Jesus has 4x the amount of documentation within the first 150 years of their deaths. Obviously historians don't go your route. I don't think you understand Step 3. Step 3 is simply just saying whatever argument you do use, don't misrepresent God of the Bible. For example, if you are arguing against a modalistic Jesus, then you are not arguing against God of the Bible. A Christian lawyer would agree. You can't deny every human being in history. That's goofy. But you can trust peoples' testimony if it is substantiated, corroborated and unexplainable naturalistically to be able to explain away the conclusion: Jesus was raised from the dead because He is God.

Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.

The first law of thermodynamics says your theory is false. Science disagrees with you. That which exists can't cease to exist. If you agree blind faith is wrong, then don't cling to the blind faith of agnosticism, for it goes against the evidence of the 4 Step Proof for God.

Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.

If evolution is "not a thing" as you said, then it can't always have been existing because like all processes, they require a beginning, a first cause. Take for example the process of decay. It doesn't happen all by itself, but a process commences. All the mechanisms, the cause and effects, in nature have a cause (based on preponderance of causes), so the first event of all mechanisms also require a cause since you admit it is a process. Even if it is a thing, it still requires a cause, for what thing comes into being all by itself? Nothing. Learn about the universe, don't learn about it for the purpose to try to disprove God, for that is vanity of vanities! Learn about it to glorify God and learn about His wonderful creation in all its complexity. That's what the greatest scientists who were Christians did. God is truly amazing!

You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
Man has not existed for eternity
Is not clearly less sinful
Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.

I have responded to all your points including all your responses to the exponential progression of conscience. Don't #1 Bear false witness that I have not. You need to prove it, otherwise you are sinning.

Man not having existed for eternity doesn't disprove Step 1 of the Proof, for man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in which man would approximate into that past. Man is clearly on a per capita basis sinning less now than over the past six thousand years. This is our evidence. That sin is not a physical object, nor a judgment-for not all sins get judged-does not disprove the fact of the exponential progression of conscience, but is key towards it. It doesn't need to be physical to prove its existence and application to prove God exists. Human sinfulness is the key to the question of infinite regress of the past, for mankind would not still be sinning by now to the extent he still does. How do we know the universe is done by God, because nature can't exist on its own. This damns your position and yourself to Hell, because unless you come to Christ as a helpless sinner, there is no other name under heaven by which you can be saved (having proved the resurrection).

More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.

You are repeating yourself mindlessly. The definition that is used for sin for the Proof is that which everyone agrees objectively is just plain wrong. #6 Clanging. We have discussed this already many times.

I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.

I have shown in point by point how your reasoning is circular, time and time again, response to quote after quote, after quote. This is the summary of your faulty brain. This is evidence that a person who is going to Hell and who will spend an eternity in Hell does not care about reality, evidence and the truth. He only cares about this:

Some guys arguing on a train headed towards the train station, still keep arguing when the arrive and when they get off and go to their respective towns. When in their towns they are still arguing. Eventually, because of so much arguing they go off into the horizon and there off in the distance they build a shack and keep repeating themselves "I told you so." That is your condition. Your eternity will be in Hell with this mentality.

Whereas Christians are in agreement, born-again, members of the body of Christ and have such great joy and blessings you could never know in your condition.

Praise the Lord!