4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Will]

Another thing that's slightly off is suggesting that "nothing in nature is without a cause" (that is, everything in nature has a cause, by distribution), but then concluding that nature itself has a cause. It doesn't exactly follow.

If your argument suggested that all natures have a cause, it would follow. I don't know how you would figure that, though. Otherwise, you're making a fallacy of composition in step (2).

[Churchwork]

This seems to imply not that the universe is not infinite, but that the existence of mankind has not been infinite. Unless there's another group that can sin that I'm unaware of.

It not only applies to mankind but the universe and time itself, because if there was an eternity of the past, mankind would have approximated into the eternity of that past and therefore, would not still be sinning as much as we do. Same applies to "heat death". Dissipation would be far greater than it is even though massive amount of energy is stored in an atom.

Another thing that's slightly off is suggesting that "nothing in nature is without a cause" (that is, everything in nature has a cause, by distribution), but then concluding that nature itself has a cause. It doesn't exactly follow.

By distribution? Since the first event in nature is in nature and all things in nature have a cause, then it too has a cause; plus, nothing always comes from nothing. Nothing can't produce something anymore than multiplying 0 x some number will produce a number greater than zero. No matter how much you multiply something to nothing, nothing still produces nothing. I think I learned that in grade 1. Grade 1 students can believe in God by God's proof of Himself by observing simple facts of nature.

If your argument suggested that all natures have a cause, it would follow. I don't know how you would figure that, though. Otherwise, you're making a fallacy of composition in step (2).

"Nothing" does not exist because it is nothing, therefore, it cannot do anything, cause anything. How can the universe be besides nothing? "Nothing" doesn't exist. How can the universe be inside "nothing"? It's impossible, since nothing is nothing.

[Will]

Since the first event in nature is in nature and all things in nature have a cause, then it too has a cause

That's still a category mistake. Things in nature are IN nature; they are not natures themselves. If events in nature must have a cause, that says nothing about the whole of nature, or whether or not all natures have a cause.

Nothing can't produce something anymore than multiplying 0 x some number will produce a number greater than zero. No matter how much you multiply something to nothing, nothing still produces nothing.

Of course. I'm not suggesting that something came from nothing. If you want to know what I believe, I'd say that everything was packed into a nearly infinitely dense point. "Before" that, I don't know what happened. It's difficult to say "before", though, as time didn't exist before space.

[Churchwork]

I was agreeing with you. I have no problem with the argument that given infinite time, man will be without sin.

I understand that you are agreeing with the exponential progression of conscience. That's not the issue I raised in the last post. You weren't agreeing, because you said you "take no issue with the first part of the argument, which is, itself, a linear progression illustrating why you believe that there is a limit on time." I never said time as "a linear progression" was why I believe time was created. There was really no need for you to mention time as a liner progression, because whether time is infinitely in the past or not it is still linear, so it is irrelevant, and besides, reusing the word progression in another sense in the same setting is terribly confusing to the reader. That's why I said just drop your linear progression statement. Ridiculous!

My fault. I tried to edit my post as quickly as I could, but it seems you found it before I could edit that (2) had not been shown, rather than (1). I have no problem with the progression of conscience you present. The jump to "the universe had to have been created", on the other hand, isn't logical.

I showed the connection already. As was said, it is true man would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past (you agreed); so, since man still sins (more than otherwise would be the case) a past eternity does not exist, and since a past eternity does not exist it follows the universe requires a beginning of being created. There is no other option. Either the universe always existed or it has a beginning of being created (Step 4 addresses the supernatural before the universe if an atheist wanted to argue that route).

A limited time frame on the past simply means that you're arguing the universe began at some point, not that it was created.

It had to have been created because something can't come from nothing. Zero can never make itself equal 1 or more. You're violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I'm not sure what you mean. You haven't shown that none compare to Christ in the proof. You may have shown it elsewhere, just not in the proof. Perhaps you're assuming that you've put more information into the proof than you actually have.

In the proof it is established none can compare to Christ since only Christ effectively deals with sin and you can find fault with the other 3 belief systems. There are only 4 accessible major categories and the other 3 fail which leaves only Christianity. The resurrection is proven. Tangible prophecies fulfilled is a fourth reason. So none can compare to Christ. Stop repeating there is not this evidence provided, I am now just repeating myself to your repetition, but you don't respond in kind.

I've obviously missed something important. Can you show me in the proof where there's a comparison that proves Jesus is God? I've looked, and I can't find it.

I already gave you one paragraph. I said to read the paragraph:

"As to the matter of comparison with all other faiths or belief systems, only the word of God shows and proves man can't save himself. Only in Christianity does God come down to save man to bring us up to Him. We can't do it ourselves. Man was born into sin, proven by the fact that no man has never not sinned. All other views are works-based belief systems and therefore, utterly fail. Their deities don't take on the likeness of flesh as Jesus did who we confirm proved to exclusivity of the world that He alone is the fullness of the Godhead bodily by His resurrection proof (using the 66 books of the Bible) with emphasis on the Minimal Facts Approach."

There are many more such paragraphs dispersed throughout.

Should I be looking somewhere else for this evidence? It's not in the proof.

Obviously you are not reading.

I am? Where did I write that?

My problem with your argument is that it isn't a logical proof.

You were arguing for fallacy of composition to reject that the universe requires a cause.

If something is illogical then why can't you show it? By making a claim and then not be able to show it is itself illogical.

[Churchwork]

That's still a category mistake. Things in nature are IN nature; they are not natures themselves. If events in nature must have a cause, that says nothing about the whole of nature, or whether or not all natures have a cause.

Things in nature are not nature? That's silly. When an apple falls from a tree this is not nature working? I am talking about the universe. You're proposing the whole composite of the universe doesn't have cause? If so, then it was always existing? But that can't be because man would not still be sinning (Step 1). And, if you want to say it happened by itself from nothing, nothing is still nothing and never becomes something (Step 2). Think about how absurd your argument is. It loses no matter how you look at it. That's why the 4 Steps are so powerful. You haven't even gotten to Step 3 and Step 4, so you are still a babe in learning. Eventually when you realize you can't get around the first 2 Steps, you start moving to Step 3 and 4. Then 4 brings around to Step 1 again. It is a perfect looping proof. I like being challenged on it. Keeps me sharp. On my toes.

You want to propose other natures without causes? Then if they always existed man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does. The composites of the universe all require a cause, for whatever begins to exist needs a cause (Kalam's).

Of course. I'm not suggesting that something came from nothing. If you want to know what I believe, I'd say that everything was packed into a nearly infinitely dense point. "Before" that, I don't know what happened. It's difficult to say "before", though, as time didn't exist before space.

Lots of atheists believe things like radioactive decay, particle pairing, Bell's Theorem and vacuuming (fancy phrases they throw around) come from nothing yet they can never actually prove it. So understand this is an approach you can easily slip into, especially when you previously argued the universe had a beginning but was not created. How is this possible if there is not an eternity of past, which is itself impossible?

When you say you "don't know what happened" that's shutting your mind down to the evidence we have already discussed. What happened before singularity was the uncreated created and intelligently designed since singularity, being nature, requires a cause, and there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for man would not still be sinning.

[Will]

However, since you still sin, you know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

This seems to imply not that the universe is not infinite, but that the existence of mankind has not been infinite. Unless there's another group that can sin that I'm unaware of.

[darwinXIII]

First, this is supposed to be a proof for the God of Abraham. You state in your overview that in both steps 1 and 2 you will explain why only Christ could be the true creator of the world. Your only so-called “proof” for this is that your God is causeless. However, this is not exclusive to your God. Ask any religious person, whether they believe in Yahweh, Thor, or Zeus, where his god came from, and he will tell you the same thing. He will tell you that his god is causeless. No religion has gods creating other creator gods. All gods have always been defined as being the “first cause” of the universe. Your only other piece of evidence saying that Christ must be god is your argument that none other gods compare. First, what’s your reason for saying this? Did you examine every single piece of mythology that has ever been written, only to say that God and only God was glorious enough to have created the world? And what does glory have to do with it? Where do you prove that the creator of the universe has to be glorious and loving? Why can’t he be evil? It would explain a lot of the pain and suffering that goes on in the world today.

Now, lets move onto your proof. The first step says that man still sins, and therefore, the universe could not be eternal, because otherwise, man would have become sinless given the ever-increasing acceleration of our conciousness’s growth. In other words, what you are saying is that were the universe eternal, human consciousness would have grown to a state of near sinlessness, and it has not, so PRAISE JEEZUS. This is so patently absurd I am shocked that I am even dignifying it with a response. You are saying that human consciousness would have been evolving when humans didn’t even exist. For obvious reasons, the existence of human consciousness is necessary for it to evolve. I hope it should also be painfully clear that humans are necessary for human consciousness to exist. So, with these two facts in place, the idea that human consciousness would have evolved for eternity, when there was no such thing as humans to even have this consciousness, should for obvious reasons be discarded. Look at it this way: if a person were to create a machine which added to its memory 1 gigabyte of data about the world every minute, would it have the sum of all possible knowledge in its memory banks as soon as it was created? Of course not. This is because its memory banks didn’t exist, and the process of adding knowledge wasn’t going on, until it was created. Similarly, the human consciousness didn’t exist, and the process of updating it didn’t exist, until the moment humans were “created” by evolution. Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand how human consciousness evolves and matures. It doesn’t just evolve due to changes in the external world. Consciousness is, after all, an abstract concept. The only material changes that can influence it are the changes that happen in people’s brains. It is true that people realized that sacrificing to gods was a bad idea, but this didn’t just happen. This happened in the minds of those people, which did not exist for eternity, but only for a blip on the cosmic scale of time. Because step 1 says that an abstract concept could evolve due to material changes before he concept was even conceived, it can’t be looked to.

Step 2 is a variation on the basic “first cause” argument. The third paragraph is where your house of cards begins to fall. I’ve already pulled out one of the foundations when I showed you that human consciousness cannot possibly evolve without humans to envision it. You say that all things in nature have a cause, at least that we have observed, and therefore, it is very improbable that the universe could just spring into existence. However, given an infinite amount of time, anything can happen, however improbable. It has been noted that subatomic particles spring seemingly from nothing in the vacuum of space. Why then, given enough time, could the universe not spring into existence in a “big bang”? You get around this by saying that an eternal universe is impossible, shown in step 1. I already burned down the straw man that was step 1, so an eternal universe is still possible. When referring back to step 1, you then make the mind-boggling leap that the God of the Bible must be God, because he is the only one that is of the nature of the god you just “proved” must exist. Again, were do you draw these conclusions? Every ideology in the world worships a god nearly identical to your own, with respect to the creation of the world. What makes your god so special that he must exist?

What you do in step 3 is very crafty. Did you take debate when you were a child? You basically ensure that nobody can fully destroy your argument by saying that God is by definition uncreated, and we cannot talk about him as having a creator. This type of thing also works for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I am telling you that the FSM is by definition uncaused, then FSM becomes just as plausible under this proof. And, every god ever made is supposed to be “uncaused.” The argument that God is uncaused, and therefore, must exist, is not exclusive to your faith at all. Now, you bring up something that REALLY pisses me off at the end of your step 3. You say that God is sinless, and perfect. Now, is this the same God we are talking about here? The same God who killed babies, and every animal on earth save two of each kind, just because man was wicked? The same one who turned a woman into salt for looking behind her? Who killed Er for no apparent reason? Who made sure that the Pharaoh would not let Moses and the Hebrews go just so that he could kill all their livestock and first-born? Who told Joshua to kill all the Amalekites? Who says that any homosexual, adulterer, witch, furry fetish, child who curses his parents, and person of any different faith should be killed? Oh, and don’t forget people who pick up sticks on Sunday. And blaspheme against him. And that is just 3 of the 66 books of fairy tales you call the Bible. If a man acted in these ways, we would have him put to death in the most painfully excrutiating way imaginable. Its time to see your idea of a “just” god for what it is: BULL.

Now let’s look at step 4. The first paragraph is based upon an idea which has been dismissed trifold already. The second paragraph only disproves that your god cannot be uncreated, because there could still be an eternity of creators before him and mankind would still sin. Third paragraph: why doesn’t Jesus have to be created? What is it about his nature that makes him so uncreated? The fact that he is extra buoyant? The fact that he can make his face appear on a tortilla? If you say something retarded like “I believe that wooden boat that is 450 feet long with one 18 sq. inch window for ventilation safely carried 2 of every animal for 40 days while more water than there is on earth rained and caused a flood of which there is no evidence and which was caused by a magical pixie who created man with evil, but instead of actually fixing their evil, just killed them all,” then YOU should ask yourself, “Why is it that people who are saved (from superstitious idiocy) understand so well how dumb my beliefs are?” One simply cannot overlook the delusion religion gives through superstition and fairy tales. The rest of your so-called “proof” is a bunch of Christian propaganda, plus a nod to the most pathetic argument of all, Pascal’s wager. I just wasted a lot of my time responding to your poorly-written experiment in stupidity, but if it makes just one person question their faith, I know that I wasted it for a good cause.
PS: Just drop me a line when you want to know who to make the check out to.

[Churchwork]

First, this is supposed to be a proof for the God of Abraham. You state in your overview that in both steps 1 and 2 you will explain why only Christ could be the true creator of the world. Your only so-called “proof” for this is that your God is causeless. However, this is not exclusive to your God. Ask any religious person, whether they believe in Yahweh, Thor, or Zeus, where his god came from, and he will tell you the same thing. He will tell you that his god is causeless. No religion has gods creating other creator gods. All gods have always been defined as being the “first cause” of the universe. Your only other piece of evidence saying that Christ must be god is your argument that none other gods compare. First, what’s your reason for saying this? Did you examine every single piece of mythology that has ever been written, only to say that God and only God was glorious enough to have created the world? And what does glory have to do with it? Where do you prove that the creator of the universe has to be glorious and loving? Why can’t he be evil? It would explain a lot of the pain and suffering that goes on in the world today.

Evil does explain suffering, but that does not justify God being the cause of suffering. Evil stems from disobedience, disobedience to the uncreated Creator. Obviously, the Creator is not being disobedient to Himself. That's silly. Regarding Jesus, none can compare to Him. Take any example you like to see that it is so. We have a world in which the God entered into His creation to take the sins of the world upon Himself to saved a people out of it which would accept His mercy and grace.

Now, lets move onto your proof. The first step says that man still sins, and therefore, the universe could not be eternal, because otherwise, man would have become sinless given the ever-increasing acceleration of our conciousness’s growth.

You misread the proof. It does not say "consciousness," but conscience. There is a difference. You need the latter.

In other words, what you are saying is that were the universe eternal, human consciousness would have grown to a state of near sinlessness, and it has not, so PRAISE JEEZUS. This is so patently absurd I am shocked that I am even dignifying it with a response. You are saying that human consciousness would have been evolving when humans didn’t even exist. For obvious reasons, the existence of human consciousness is necessary for it to evolve. I hope it should also be painfully clear that humans are necessary for human consciousness to exist. So, with these two facts in place, the idea that human consciousness would have evolved for eternity, when there was no such thing as humans to even have this consciousness, should for obvious reasons be discarded. Look at it this way: if a person were to create a machine which added to its memory 1 gigabyte of data about the world every minute, would it have the sum of all possible knowledge in its memory banks as soon as it was created? Of course not. This is because its memory banks didn’t exist, and the process of adding knowledge wasn’t going on, until it was created. Similarly, the human consciousness didn’t exist, and the process of updating it didn’t exist, until the moment humans were “created” by evolution. Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand how human consciousness evolves and matures. It doesn’t just evolve due to changes in the external world. Consciousness is, after all, an abstract concept. The only material changes that can influence it are the changes that happen in people’s brains. It is true that people realized that sacrificing to gods was a bad idea, but this didn’t just happen. This happened in the minds of those people, which did not exist for eternity, but only for a blip on the cosmic scale of time. Because step 1 says that an abstract concept could evolve due to material changes before he concept was even conceived, it can’t be looked to.

Aside from your confusion between conscience and consciousness already noted and building a faulty argument from your misconstruing conscience for consciousness, what you are failing to look into and understand is the law of approximation to eternity which is fully explained in Step 1 already. To repeat, that which approximates to exist in the eternity of the past is deemed as having existed for eternity. Thus man would not still be sinning by now given the evidence we have which shows an exponential progression of conscience from antiquity to today, e.g. virtually no more child sacrifices, and several other examples cited. All we have is the evidence of this data point which is unchallenged.

Think of it this way: pretend there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then man's existence would have existed in that past of cause of effects close enough to that eternity of the past, he would approximate having existed for eternity (according to calculus) and would have had an eternity to reach sinlessness after having been in a state of sinfulness. Since man still sins, obviously there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. The universe was created by the uncreated creator.

Step 2 is a variation on the basic “first cause” argument. The third paragraph is where your house of cards begins to fall. I’ve already pulled out one of the foundations when I showed you that human consciousness cannot possibly evolve without humans to envision it. You say that all things in nature have a cause, at least that we have observed, and therefore, it is very improbable that the universe could just spring into existence. However, given an infinite amount of time, anything can happen, however improbable. It has been noted that subatomic particles spring seemingly from nothing in the vacuum of space. Why then, given enough time, could the universe not spring into existence in a “big bang”? You get around this by saying that an eternal universe is impossible, shown in step 1. I already burned down the straw man that was step 1, so an eternal universe is still possible. When referring back to step 1, you then make the mind-boggling leap that the God of the Bible must be God, because he is the only one that is of the nature of the god you just “proved” must exist. Again, were do you draw these conclusions? Every ideology in the world worships a god nearly identical to your own, with respect to the creation of the world. What makes your god so special that he must exist?

Don't think of Step 2 as some unspecified first cause argument, but rather just let the evidence guide you which is to say, since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then the universe can't cause itself. We are left with only one possibility, the universe was caused by the uncaused if we trust the weight of the evidence we see trillions of things with causes but nothing that without a cause.

It is a faulty argument to pick the most complicated subject matter on quantum mechanics of which there are varied many opinions as there are scientists and claim that something happens all by itself when there is nothing to suggest it. Just because you are not smart enough does not mean it is without a cause like all things we have seen have causes. That strikes as arrogant to the nth degree.

It is also illogical infinity means anything can happen. That assumption is without basis. Things do happen, yes, but there is no grounds to say anything can happen. A dog who has no wings today can't grow wings in a day and start flying. Silly.

The Big Bang happened which was caused then by the uncreated creator. And you ask about why Jesus is the One. He is the One Uncreated Creator because none can compare to Him which you can easily determine by comparison. Pick any comparison you like to see that it is so.

Since you could not overturn the proof of Step 1 & 2, they remain unchallenged. Step 3 is important because the error made so often should be addressed.

What you do in step 3 is very crafty. Did you take debate when you were a child? You basically ensure that nobody can fully destroy your argument by saying that God is by definition uncreated, and we cannot talk about him as having a creator. This type of thing also works for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I am telling you that the FSM is by definition uncaused, then FSM becomes just as plausible under this proof. And, every god ever made is supposed to be “uncaused.” The argument that God is uncaused, and therefore, must exist, is not exclusive to your faith at all. Now, you bring up something that REALLY pisses me off at the end of your step 3. You say that God is sinless, and perfect. Now, is this the same God we are talking about here? The same God who killed babies, and every animal on earth save two of each kind, just because man was wicked? The same one who turned a woman into salt for looking behind her? Who killed Er for no apparent reason? Who made sure that the Pharaoh would not let Moses and the Hebrews go just so that he could kill all their livestock and first-born? Who told Joshua to kill all the Amalekites? Who says that any homosexual, adulterer, witch, furry fetish, child who curses his parents, and person of any different faith should be killed? Oh, and don’t forget people who pick up sticks on Sunday. And blaspheme against him. And that is just 3 of the 66 books of fairy tales you call the Bible. If a man acted in these ways, we would have him put to death in the most painfully excrutiating way imaginable. Its time to see your idea of a “just” god for what it is: BULL.

You have misread Step 3. Step 3 is for you to try to disprove the qualities of God of the Bible, so when you try to argue against some quality that is not His Own, you are no longer arguing against the God this Proof is proving. You are arguing against something else which is in vain. We are not concerned with that since Jesus stands above all else as shown by comparison in any example you are free to choose. For example, the FSM fails because spaghetti is a physical product obviously having a cause whereas Jesus is uncreated. The uncreated supersedes the inanimate physically caused product of this world. Now you can claim the FSM is uncaused but you have nothing to base your claim and your claim is contradictory, because everyone knows spaghetti has a cause.

Certainly, there can be other claims of being uncaused, but they can't compare to Christ. Don't shut your mind down to this fact. Don't speak vaguely. If you have a contender present him, and I will show you the failure of your god.

There is consequence to sin. For example, in some of your points, they were killing their own children as child sacrifices. A holy, righteous God would respond with the annihilation of such people who would not stop doing this, and proof is, today those nations no longer exist while Israel 3 centuries later has returned to her promise land to be the center of all nations. Under your scenario, live sacrificial killing of children would go on today, televised, because you would not respond appropriately to such crimes as you defend Satan your god in this practice and blame God for stopping it apropos. The condition of such people was so far gone there was only one response.

To respond to another item, the great sin of enslaving a people for 430 years has consequence. The consequence to such grave sin is the first-born died by eating infected grain in a time of starvation, so the first-born were desperately fed that grain which should not have been eaten. The Hebrews which lived in Goshen were not affected by this plague.

And, all 66 books of God's Word are fully true since you could find no fault with any of them. What a wonderful testimony!

Praise the Lord!

Now let’s look at step 4. The first paragraph is based upon an idea which has been dismissed trifold already. The second paragraph only disproves that your god cannot be uncreated, because there could still be an eternity of creators before him and mankind would still sin. Third paragraph: why doesn’t Jesus have to be created? What is it about his nature that makes him so uncreated? The fact that he is extra buoyant? The fact that he can make his face appear on a tortilla? If you say something retarded like “I believe that wooden boat that is 450 feet long with one 18 sq. inch window for ventilation safely carried 2 of every animal for 40 days while more water than there is on earth rained and caused a flood of which there is no evidence and which was caused by a magical pixie who created man with evil, but instead of actually fixing their evil, just killed them all,” then YOU should ask yourself, “Why is it that people who are saved (from superstitious idiocy) understand so well how dumb my beliefs are?” One simply cannot overlook the delusion religion gives through superstition and fairy tales. The rest of your so-called “proof” is a bunch of Christian propaganda, plus a nod to the most pathetic argument of all, Pascal’s wager. I just wasted a lot of my time responding to your poorly-written experiment in stupidity, but if it makes just one person question their faith, I know that I wasted it for a good cause.
PS: Just drop me a line when you want to know who to make the check out to.

Since it was shown that the uncreated creator must exist and your attempt to disprove this failed, it stands (as was shown by my response herein). And since Jesus meets that criteria and stands above all comparison, we have a clear victory.

And man's existence approximates an existence in eternity past if such an eternity of the past existed, therefore, man would not still be sinning according to the exponential progression of conscience (also clearly observed).

Do we use the argument of the ark to prove Jesus? No. In fact, we don't even need to use anything of the Bible except the Minimal Facts Approach of His resurrection as Jesus Himself said that is the Proof He is Uncreated, for who could resurrect on the 3rd day if He was not the true uncreated Creator?

Part of your problem is professing challengers to Christ in a vague way, but never dealing specifically. In this case the devil is not in the details but in your vagaries to not realize the truth, none can compare to Christ.

Praise the Lord!

The $10,000 for being able to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God is at least thankfully growing interest since it is without to date any challengers and stands as a beacon nobody could disprove the Proof for God of the Bible. And I am glad you could find no grammer or organizational mistakes in the 4 Step Proof for God, otherwise, I could have fixed them. Though you can accuse you can't back up your accusation.

[darwinXIII]

Alright, let's start at the very beginning. You once again assert that none can compare to Christ. However, even if we are to accept that Christ is the best God that we have thought up, it still doesn't prove anything. There are infinite ways that Christ could be better. How about, instead of healing just a few people, he decided to rid the world of all suffering? Millions of children are dying in Africa, and yet all your god can do is to show his face on a grilled-cheese sandwich. You're right, nothing else compares.

Now, lets move onto the next part. It is true that I use consciousness instead of conscience, but by consciousness, I mean consciousness of evil. In other words, conscience. Now, your law of approximation to eternity sounds cool, but it is retarded. Mankind hasn't existed for eternity. You can misquote all sorts of things from your calculus textbook, but sometimes, common sense just prevails. Second, what you say next is completely idiotic. You say that since man has existed for close to eternity, it approximates to eternity. No atheist believes that. We believe that modern man has existed for a few thousand years, no more. That is not at all close to eternity. There could still have been an eternity of cause and effects, but none of them influenced us or out conscience, because WE WEREN'T AROUND FOR IT. You don't respond to my example of the omniscient robot, so your entire argument falls based on that.

Your next response is a real lesson in douchebaggery. You resort to insulting my intelligence so that you don't have to actually answer my arguments. I already show you that matter DOES appear without a seeming cause, so it is only a matter of time before a universe would appear.

But let's move on to the next part, Step 3. You accuse me of attacking qualities that are not God's own. And yet, I provide you with numerous examples of what god did and said, and they are his own. Your only response to what they did is that "they were killing their children as sacrifices." Now, obviously, they didn't kill all their children. Some of them had to live for the race to continue, and they must have known that. So, what your god decided to do was to kill EVERY ONE of them. Instead of only killing those who were guilty, he decided to kill all of them, even the babes who were to be slaughtered anyway, and those who weren't. What a dick. And yes, I found no fault with any of the 66 books of the Bible. Besides, of course, the disgusting examples of bigotry, hatred and intolerance condoned by your dickhead of a god. And, in the NEXT PARAGRAPH, the obvious fallacy with Noah's Ark. Now, the next line is the part that really gets me. With religion, everything has to be perfect. All the things which you believe, down to the last syllable, must be true. After all, they are supposed to be God's word, are they not? So, in other words, if just one thing is found to be wrong, you have to throw it out, because then you know it is not the word of a perfect god. You pretty much accept that Noah's ark is bullcrap, because you don't really make any kind of a challenge to it. Therefore, everything ought to be thrown out.

Second, the minimal facts argument is faulty at best, because of the nature of religion, which I just described to you. However, you are using it wrong. You go right from dismissing Noah's Ark to assuming that the resurrection of Jesus is a fact. You know nothing of the sort. That is, unless you can prove why he is better than these gods: Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Agasaya, Athtart, Baal, Baku, Brahma, Camalus, Chac, Ea, El, Emma-o, Eos, Frigg, Gaia, Gu, Hai, Hoderi, Ibis, Jord, Kane, Kapo, Kari, Ki, Kojin, Lares, Maeve, Marduk, Manua, Maui, Maya, Miro, Mixcoatl, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanaja, Neith, Nott, Ops, Oro, Pales, Phoebe, Ra, Rhea, Septu, Seth, Seti, Shu, Sif, Valkyries, and Yu-huang, to name a few. And even if you do manage to prove that he is a more virtuous or loving god than any of the other gods out there, you still need to explain why that proves his existence. A more desirable myth is by no means a true one. Any god who is said to have powers of creation is just as easily a creator of this world as yours is.

[Churchwork]

Alright, let's start at the very beginning. You once again assert that none can compare to Christ. However, even if we are to accept that Christ is the best God that we have thought up, it still doesn't prove anything. There are infinite ways that Christ could be better. How about, instead of healing just a few people, he decided to rid the world of all suffering? Millions of children are dying in Africa, and yet all your god can do is to show his face on a grilled-cheese sandwich. You're right, nothing else compares.

To rid the world of all suffering like magic is not reality, because suffering is the natural consequence of sin, and sin definitely transpired. You would be after a fantasy, not reality. In the long-run reality is better, so we choose life. God shows Himself in their suffering to show how evil man is in causing these children to suffer, why hell must exist and sin must be punished. The children will be saved in resurrection and shall have far greater things ahead of them, but for those that caused their suffering, their torment in hell for all eternity is not something you should wish upon your worst enemy. There is not a single way to my mind and none you have shown to make Christ better. Thus far, you have failed; or succeeded in showing Jesus is the Christ, our Lord and Savior. Praise the Lord!

Now, lets move onto the next part. It is true that I use consciousness instead of conscience, but by consciousness, I mean consciousness of evil. In other words, conscience. Now, your law of approximation to eternity sounds cool, but it is retarded. Mankind hasn't existed for eternity. You can misquote all sorts of things from your calculus textbook, but sometimes, common sense just prevails. Second, what you say next is completely idiotic. You say that since man has existed for close to eternity, it approximates to eternity. No atheist believes that. We believe that modern man has existed for a few thousand years, no more. That is not at all close to eternity. There could still have been an eternity of cause and effects, but none of them influenced us or out conscience, because WE WEREN'T AROUND FOR IT. You don't respond to my example of the omniscient robot, so your entire argument falls based on that.

Silly rationalizing. Consciousness is awareness of one's self, surroundings and so forth, even conscience, but you never specified conscience even once to show you had been mistaken and sloppy in reading and now trying to cover up your mistake. Funny. Indeed, it is retarded to shut your mind down to the fact that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, man's existence would have been derived from that past and approximated within it to approach an infinity for our purposes. There is no way around this for you to escape this common sense. Using your own words, you are being idiotic, again, shutting your mind down to proper thinking. Whether man came into existence yesterday or 10 million or 10 billion years ago makes no difference; for, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects man yet still would have existed from that past of approximating to eternity and no longer still be sinning according to the exponential progression of conscience. And God is not an omniscient Robot. It is His prerogative to choose when to create and input His redemptive design in His appropriate time span before the new city and new earth is attained all of which is done righteously according to His good will and nature. All you are doing is manifesting your hostility towards Him without just cause. That is why Hell exists. God accounts for those who reject His mercy towards your corrupted nature. You can't be annihilated because you are made in His image, so you will be resurrected for Hell. How sad for you.

Your next response is a real lesson in douchebaggery. You resort to insulting my intelligence so that you don't have to actually answer my arguments. I already show you that matter DOES appear without a seeming cause, so it is only a matter of time before a universe would appear.

You did not show that matter appears without a cause. You would be delusional. Presuming something without any evidence to support it is not "seeming", but is in your case wanting to something to rationalize your hostility to God of the Bible. Your lack of intelligence is not being insulted nor is it the cause of you presuming something happens all by itself without evidence; rather, it is your belligerency, mindlessness, hostility and disobedience to not only God but common sense in which there are trillions of things with causes and nothing solidly shown to have no cause. Even a small child or someone with a low IQ has not made the mistake you made. I'm embarrassed for you.

But let's move on to the next part, Step 3. You accuse me of attacking qualities that are not God's own. And yet, I provide you with numerous examples of what god did and said, and they are his own. Your only response to what they did is that "they were killing their children as sacrifices." Now, obviously, they didn't kill all their children. Some of them had to live for the race to continue, and they must have known that. So, what your god decided to do was to kill EVERY ONE of them. Instead of only killing those who were guilty, he decided to kill all of them, even the babes who were to be slaughtered anyway, and those who weren't. What a dick. And yes, I found no fault with any of the 66 books of the Bible. Besides, of course, the disgusting examples of bigotry, hatred and intolerance condoned by your dickhead of a god. And, in the NEXT PARAGRAPH, the obvious fallacy with Noah's Ark. Now, the next line is the part that really gets me. With religion, everything has to be perfect. All the things which you believe, down to the last syllable, must be true. After all, they are supposed to be God's word, are they not? So, in other words, if just one thing is found to be wrong, you have to throw it out, because then you know it is not the word of a perfect god. You pretty much accept that Noah's ark is bullcrap, because you don't really make any kind of a challenge to it. Therefore, everything ought to be thrown out.

I did not say you attacked God with qualities that are not His own, but rather that is the point of Step 3 not to make that mistake which so many do.

I am going to have to give you an infraction for saying "dickhead". That is uncalled for. You can make false claims against God all you like, but fortunately, you can't back it up. Praise God!

Understand what happened. These nations in this practice of child sacrifices was going on generation after generation and would not cease. They would war to preserve their practices of their gods. Understand that sometimes God did preserve some of the people out of them and in other cases destroyed them all accordingly since such practices were so vile.

I find no problem with Noah's Ark. There were many great floods in antiquity which had massive local ramifications. The flood was not a global flood but a flood that was considered of their known world. Such stories do not get made up out of nowhere. They have some basis. Floods were devastating events. You lack compassion to appreciate this. Does it still not remain the fact that you can't find a single fault with the Bible? Funny. You keep arguing but never actually address specifically an problems with the Bible. Why blow so much smoke?

Second, the minimal facts argument is faulty at best, because of the nature of religion, which I just described to you. However, you are using it wrong. You go right from dismissing Noah's Ark to assuming that the resurrection of Jesus is a fact. You know nothing of the sort. That is, unless you can prove why he is better than these gods: Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Agasaya, Athtart, Baal, Baku, Brahma, Camalus, Chac, Ea, El, Emma-o, Eos, Frigg, Gaia, Gu, Hai, Hoderi, Ibis, Jord, Kane, Kapo, Kari, Ki, Kojin, Lares, Maeve, Marduk, Manua, Maui, Maya, Miro, Mixcoatl, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanaja, Neith, Nott, Ops, Oro, Pales, Phoebe, Ra, Rhea, Septu, Seth, Seti, Shu, Sif, Valkyries, and Yu-huang, to name a few. And even if you do manage to prove that he is a more virtuous or loving god than any of the other gods out there, you still need to explain why that proves his existence. A more desirable myth is by no means a true one. Any god who is said to have powers of creation is just as easily a creator of this world as yours is.

You are the one mentioning Noah's Ark. I am just responding to you and also telling you that the MFA is the key, not all the periphery items you bring up. Jesus is telling us MFA is the key, so we hinge His authority and power on His proof of His resurrection. Only Jesus entered into creation and atoned for the sins of the world by His death and showed the power of His resurrection fully documenting it. Nobody is more well documented in antiquity than is Jesus so you can't contend against the historical Jesus on that basis. You will have to try another tactic, though I am sure you will fail there also. By comparison you can Jesus is the One and Only Uncreated Creator.

Fact: none of these gods had a resurrection preceding the resurrection of Christ. Sometimes there were claims of resurrection after Jesus, but nothing that was multiply attested like was the case in the 12 different group settings of Jesus' resurrection.