4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Churchwork]

I have had all these discussions before so many times. The problem always is you don't look at what you are assuming if it is indeed proven or not, so by not looking at what you are assuming, you engender false ideas that flow from those mistaken assumptions. That's all that's going on. It should be noted it takes pride to assume something without the need for evidence to support it. As the Bible says, PROVE ALL THINGS.

You couldn't prove any hand waving or special pleading or that the argument is not strong, so just saying so doesn't mean it's true.

Step 2 of the proof still remains, since there is just one argument, that is, nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore, nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself and is not always existing, then we are left with only one possibility. The uncreated created who is God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ. You haven't been able to disprove this solid proof.

Notice your only to Step 2 is essentially is self-declaring your disagreement, but not providing anything to back up your disagreement.

You're confusing net sin with sin per capita. You misread Step 1 and Step 4 of the proof.

No comment was made on the general extinction of those cultures. What was pointed out is their practice of child sacrifices has ceased. That is the point I wanted to get across. As many people that died on the 20th century due to war and attempts at extermination, on a per capita basis it is still less than those previous centuries, primarily because the population exploded from the 19th to the 20th century.

You can see how dead your conscience is, because you are defending child sacrifices of those nations that now cease to exist for their evil ways. Whereas Isaac who was to be sacrificed was stopped at the altar by God to say stop the sacrifices. It is wrong. Israel stood among so many nations to stand up against this. God will choose out a people for Himself such as Israel because they were willing to listen to Him. They had been in slavery for 430 years.

Even homosexuality is dropping on a per capita basis.

Those in Islam are insulted by being show their false beliefs. I understand that, because they are being judged. Nobody likes to be judged whether they are being true or false. Ultimately the reason they do what they do is because the Koran says Jesus did not die on the cross. Six centuries later they (actually one guy in a cave all by himself, named Mohamed) just decided to make it up that Jesus did not die on the cross. If you can assume that without evidence, you can assume other things like the need to blow yourself up in the name of Allah.

Nothing in modern science even suggests something happens all by itself. You can't prove it here or anywhere. Talk to scientists, they will help you out to get your thinking straight. It's always disingenuous to try to pick the most complicated subjects to make a proof that something happens all by itself. There as many different papers written on quantum mechanics as there are theories about quantum mechanics.

Christians don't say because God exists therefore God is true; nor do we say since God is uncreated God must be true and not have a creator. Rather, we say, because nothing in nature happens all by itself, nature can't cause itself and must therefore be cause by the only known possibility which is the uncreated created.

It doesn't stand to reason if everything has a cause that God should have a cause because God is not nature. You got confused before thinking God is nature.

Since Jesus said He is God the Creator, the minimum standard of comparison would be for another person on earth claiming He is the Creator. Do you have any challengers?

Since you could find no fault with the proof for God and God being Jesus, then you should give your life to Christ. He is the best answer for all your concerns.

Actually all your posts have assumptions which you don't want to defend. This violates Board Etiquette #6. But I am trying to show you as much mercy as I can, but when it gets inordinately egregious, I will have no choice to add on infractions, because repeating myself and your not responding to that evidence supplied, shows your disingenuousness.

[Apoche]

It should be noted it takes pride to assume something without the need for evidence to support it.

Yeah, you ought to heed your own words. Show me where I have not backed up my arguments, and I will tell you why you are wrong.

nothing in nature happens all by itself.

There are numerous fields within physics that throw doubts on concepts such as causality, and you can easily propose philosophical models that deny it altogether. Nevertheless, let us assume you are right for the sake of the argument.

Therefore, nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself and is not always existing, then we are left with only one possibility.

If you by 'nature' mean 'all that exists,' then it has to, by definition, lack a cause. Any cause of existence also exists, and by the above definition, any cause of nature is thus a part of nature. The only alternative I can see to this is saying that either nature or the universe or everything has always been around, or that it caused itself.

The uncreated created who is God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ. You haven't been able to disprove this solid proof.

I beg your pardon, but this is one massive non sequitur. The problem is not the existence of causality, but rather that you identify the cause as the God of the Bible. It makes no difference if none can compare to God, since "the cause of nature is the God of the Bible" does not follow from that statement. Ergo, even if what you say is true about causality and none being able to compare to God, you have not proved that the world was by necessity created by God.

Notice your only to Step 2 is essentially is self-declaring your disagreement, but not providing anything to back up your disagreement.

I did: "Second, saying that God is uncreated because he is God is special pleading, and, as FSTDT correctly identifies in her (their?) post, ad hoc. If everything has a cause, then of course God should also have a cause; but you say no, and give no proper reason for why God is uncaused." That's how I backed it up, and I think it's valid. If you disagree, then tell me why rather than simply stating 'you did not back it up.'

You're confusing net sin with sin per capita. You misread Step 1 and Step 4 of the proof.

You fail to see that net 'sin' is related to 'sin' per capita. The more 'sin' in the world, the more 'sinners' we have. Or do you honestly think that the Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by a single 'sinner'? That the guilt of the entire Holocaust is Hitler's? There were many thousands of people involved in both of these, and in all the other atrocities I listed, so I don't get how you can say that fewer people 'sin.' There might not be child sacrifices going on, but way worse things than any of the authors of the Bible could imagine are continually happening all around the globe, and it's the work of men rather than Satan. Even if we accept your conclusion that net 'sin' is separate from 'sin' per capita, you have done nothing to prove that the trend is decreasing. All you cited was a single graph, and that is hardly enough. This is a bare-boned assertion, and you cannot back it up at all.

You can see how dead your conscience is, because you are defending child sacrifices of those nations that now cease to exist for their evil ways.

I am going to defend human sacrifice among the Aztecs and the Mayans and all Mesoamerican peoples from all manners of pompous western-cetrics, be they religious or secular. There was nothing evil about these civilizations.

You can't prove it here or anywhere. Talk to scientists, they will help you out to get your thinking straight.

Since you are the one who said that everything in nature has a cause, please show me how come parts of quantum mechanics do not destroy popular conceptions of causality (such as yours).

It doesn't stand to reason if everything has a cause that God should have a cause because God is not nature. You got confused before thinking God is nature.

This is ad hoc -- you can't show why God is not a part of nature, and you just say so in order to get away with your nonsense. Like FSTDT pointed out, you say everything has a cause, but God doesn't, because, you know, he's God.

Since Jesus said He is God the Creator, the minimum standard of comparison would be for another person on earth claiming He is the Creator. Do you have any challengers?

Yeah. Me. "I am the uncreated Creator."

But I am trying to show you as much mercy as I can, but when it gets inordinately egregious, I will have no choice to add on infractions, because repeating myself and your not responding to that evidence supplied, shows your disingenuousness.

I have told you, multiple times, why you are wrong. And yet you keep on saying that I don't back up my reasoning.

[Churchwork]

Christians don't say God is uncreated because he is God. We say He is uncreated because the uncreated is proven to exist and because none can compare to Jesus.

By nature means the material universe. Nothing in the material universe happens all by itself or can cause itself. It always has a cause. God is not in the material universe, for He is never represented as such, so He qualifies as the necessary uncaused cause.

It does follow that the uncreated Creator would be unique in the claim of being uncreated for there is only one uncreated Creator; hence, none can compare to Christ.

You don't understand sin per capita. Sin per capita is saying there is 100 people taking a test and 3 people were cheating. Next year there is 200 people taking the test and 5 people cheated on the test. The latter is still better than the former on a per capita basis.

Per capita, child sacrifices are down. Per capita, women can vote more. Per capita, crime rate is down. And the list goes on and on.

You're a bad guy because you admit about yourself: "I am going to defend human sacrifice".

The most popular Christian in the entire eastern culture history was Watchman Nee. He is not western. You might want to read him since you have angst against the west.

You said, "please show me how come parts of quantum mechanics do not destroy popular conceptions of causality (such as yours)." Because they agree with the law of cause and effect. It is really is an asinine thing to think something happened all by itself like puff the magic dragon. You can't really even have a conversation with such stiff-lipped people.

Who is behind the evil things? Satan. Who gives into them. Man.

It was already shown why God is not part of nature, for since nothing in nature happens all by itself, the cause must be uncreated. The Bible is showing you who the uncreated is: Father, Son, Spirit (Triune God) for none can compare to Christ, for only the uncreated can enter into creation and resurrect of His own volition by the Spirit. The natural realm can't do this itself.

You said you are the uncreated creator, then you should know what you were doing 350 years ago. What were you doing on the first Wednesday in the month of June back then? Funny. Do you see how absurd things get? Now you are claiming to be God. You will argue to the cows come home with such mindlessness. It only shows there are some folks who will never repent of their sins to come to the cross to receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior even though they have no reason to remain hostile to Him.

One more infraction, then you go into temporary moderation. Just trying to give you a heads up if you want to discuss without being in moderation.

[Apoche]

One more infraction, then you go into temporary moderation. Just trying to give you a heads up if you want to discuss without being in moderation.

Would you please stop handing out these infractions? All you accomplish is stifling the debate, and it's annoying anyway.

Anyway.

Christians don't say God is uncreated because he is God. We say He is uncreated because the uncreated is proven to exist and because none can compare to Jesus.

So, in other words, you say God is uncreated because he is God. Before you send another of those silly infractions of yours, let's go through this once again. You state that God has the quality of being uncreated, and that in order to avoid an infinite regress, this means God is the creator of the world. I could just as well say "I believe in a floating, amorphous pile of citrus pie named Sauron that is uncreated, and that none can in any way compare to this entity, because it is very benevolent and wise and never does anything wrong." Does this mean Sauron is the cause of the universe? You would say no. Yet your argument in favour of God is of the same sort--you define 'being uncreated' as a part of God, and then you say that only that which is uncreated can be the cause of the universe.

It does follow that the uncreated Creator would be unique in the claim of being uncreated for there is only one uncreated Creator; hence, none can compare to Christ.

Anyone can claim to be uncreated. The only evidence you have that Jesus was uncreated is his own word for it--and using Jesus' words to prove that Jesus is uncreated is not even circular, it's just inane and stupid.

Per capita, child sacrifices are down. Per capita, women can vote more. Per capita, crime rate is down. And the list goes on and on.

Isn't this an example of lying with statistics? Even though the percentage of cheaters goes down, the amount of cheaters is on the rise. The problem has not been dealt with, and the net 'sin' is actually increasing. Why would God employ such a dishonest means of measuring 'sin' as this 'sin' per capita concept?

You're a bad guy because you admit about yourself: "I am going to defend human sacrifice".

I am not a bad guy, that's just your subjective opinion. I said I defend the people who sacrificed children who operated within their own moral framework from those who accuse them of being evil.

The most popular Christian in the entire eastern culture history was Watchman Nee. He is not western. You might want to read him since you have angst against the west.

I have no 'angst' against the west. I am a proud westerner, and nothing is going to change that. I won't read Watchman Nee's book, since it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

It is really is an asinine thing to think something happened all by itself like puff the magic dragon. You can't really even have a conversation with such stiff-lipped people.

This is an asinine thing to say. We're having an actual debate, and we express different opinions. Every single person who has challenged you has told you that quantum mechanics refute your view of causality, and yet you merely hand-wave it away, saying "no it doesn't." How about you give yourself an infraction for mindless and boring repetition? Please provide some evidence. Tell me why quantum mechanics do not refute your view of causality, and if you convince me, then I'll admit I was wrong. Until then, I won't change my mind regarding this issue.

It was already shown why God is not part of nature, for since nothing in nature happens all by itself, the cause must be uncreated.

This is nonsense. Your argument goes like this:

A: Nature is created.
B: That which created it has to be uncreated.
C: God is uncreated because he said so.
D: God is the creator of nature.

You said you are the uncreated creator, then you should know what you were doing 350 years ago.

My point was that anyone can say "I am the uncreated creator!"

[Churchwork]

The infractions are for the purpose of preventing you from stifling the discussion because it gets boring when you just self-declare yourself or repeat yourself mindlessly and misread so profusely after the answer was already given.

This is a clear violation of Board Etiquette #6 (which now you go into moderation temporarily with infractions at 15 points or higher), for you are not to repeat yourself mindlessly after it was already show otherwise. You said, "So, in other words, you say God is uncreated because he is God". No! Never said that. God is uncreated because nothing in nature happens all by itself, so the only possibility is there is an uncreated Creator who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. It's really not that hard to understand.

I am giving you an infraction for calling infractions silly which is not in keeping with BE #3. It is silly to overlook the consequences of your actions.

Jesus' own words He is uncreated is not the evidence used in the Minimal Facts Approach for Jesus being uncreated. It is that which most scholars agree Paul was being genuine about in the earliest recorded Christian documents of Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15. And martyrs don't go to their death on what they believe to be a lie. Hallucinations can't explain their eyewitness accounts because group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology.

You keep arguing about things that are not the what is being applied in the proof, so that is why Step 3 of the proof indicates don't argue against a quality of God that is not His own, for you would be arguing against something else and makes this conversation pointless.

Sin per capita is valid, just as many statistics are kept on a per capita basis whether they go up, net wise or not. What matters is exponentially sin per capita is going down which disproves there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for you would still not be sinning by now.

You are still a bad guy for defending child sacrifices under any conditions. That's your sin nature speaking loud and clear; you want to remain in your sin nature, for you will not repent. Hell exists for your types.

That's funny that you said, you "have no 'angst' against the west" when previously you said, "pompous western-cetrics, be they religious or secular".

You have no interest in reading Christian writings because you don't care for the truth after it was shown you. You won't be saved then for God said if you don't search Him out with all your heart and soul, you won't find Him. That is a spiritual law. You can bank on it! You don't realize you are hear because you are trying to rationalize a lie. It is eating away at your conscience, because you don't listen to your own spirit of God-consciousness.

I would have liked to continue our discussion without you having to go into moderation, but you are hellbent on making the same mistakes which you get the infractions for. That is just plain old obstinacy and belligerency.

You can't just hand-wave quantum mechanics claims something happens all by itself without any substantial evidence, for there are trillions of things with causes and nothing we can find with certainty that is without a cause in nature. The odds are so stacked against you, that you have a better chance of winning the lottery. Remember, for you to make a bizarre claim as this, the burden of the proof is clearly on you, because it is way out of standard observation. Just because atheists self-declare something happens all by itself in the minute world of quantum mechanics does not make it true. It is also disingenuous to have no backing for such a claim in the most complex area of science as an appeal for puff the magic dragon. Really you should select something more common like the earth happened all by itself or raindrops fall all by themselves, but we both know they do have a cause.

This is a very very boring conversation and you are an extreme dullard. So the infractions also fulfill the role of encouraging you not to be so mindless as you experience temporary moderation that may turn into temporary ban then permanent ban and removal if you continue these mistakes. I wouldn't want you to waste your time or my time.

You're bearing false witness of the proof. Rather, it goes like this:
A. Nothing in nature happens all by itself since all the evidence points to causes in trillions of them.
B. Therefore, nature can't cause itself, because it being nature has a cause.
C. Nature can't cause itself then it must be caused by that which is uncaused since no other possibility is fathomed by anyone in the history of the human race.
D. God proves He is the One uncaused through Jesus Christ in multiple group attestation of His resurrection recorded in documents most scholars agree Paul was being genuine about and were early to the date of His death as current as anything in antiquity.
E. If no alternative explanation can be fathomed, then it is likely true. You would be a gambler if you did not give your life to Christ.
F. To date, nobody has been able to find an alternative explanation worth considering.

Actually the lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won the most court cases in a row which was 245 said the case for the death, deity and resurrection is the best case he has ever seen. We can be certain it is true then since nothing is more well proven.

It is only important that one say He is the creator if He is the Creator, but He still has to prove it and Jesus does in His Word.

Your comments are riff with bearing false witness, for I did say "in order to avoid an infinite regress, this means God is the creator of the world". We are not avoiding infinite regress, but showed why there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects because of the exponential progression of conscience as you would not still be sinning by now. Hence, the only possibility is that the uncreated created.

Your Sauron example fails because it has no evidential backing, just your self-declaring it. That is the nature of Satan and his pawns to mindlessly self-declare. It's boring. Whereas Christianity has the multiple attestation in various group settings of Jesus' resurrected and most scholars agree Paul was being genuine in Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 testifying to this in his meeting with the Apostles.

Amen.

[Taksuru]

This is my critique of your "4 Step Proof for God," and all my citations come from your article found at:

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

I see many people have already tried to refute your proof, and in my mind they have succeeded, but you keep ignoring what they have to say. That in mind, I do not have high hopes I will succeed, but as I am a warrior and not only a priest, I must give it a try. In my discussion I will use terms and concepts from philosophy (eastern, western, and my native Tinzirean), as well as science, anthropology, and common sense. Hopefully, you will decide to facilitate this discussion by refraining from sending constant and unecessary infractions. They only stifle debate and strangles critical thinking.

Just like Ah Puch, I shall format my rebuttal in a concise and organized way. There will be five parts to it: four parts in which I rebut the four stages of your proof, and a conclusion, in which I sum up why I think it is not a very good proof of the Christian God.

1. Step I

1.1. You sum up the first part of your proof as:

If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

1.1.1 It is not proven that perfection means there is no sin. Perfection is a bit of a slippery term, and it can really mean whatever you want. True, I admit, it could mean a world without any sin whatsoever. It could also mean a world with only sin and nothing but sin. Or it could mean a world in which all living things are instantly turned into ice cream. What I am trying to say with this is that it is not a fact that a sinless world is perfect. Now, since what a perfect world would be like is impossible to say (it is!), a number of conclusions can be drawn:
1.1.1.1 From this it follows that perhaps the world we live in right now is perfect. That would rebut your entire argument about global increase in conscience, whatever that is supposed to mean. I am not saying that we live in a perfect world, only that since it is so hard to pin down the meaning of the phrase 'perfect world,' it could just as well mean the current state of affairs.
1.1.1.2 Maybe sin is unrelated to perfection. Perhaps a perfect universe is merely very aesthetical, and maybe it doesn't matter in such a universe if people sin or not. Once again, I do not think it is this way, just that it might be so. I am trying to tell you that perfection is a very unclear term, and that it shouldn't be used lightly (or even be used at all!) within philosophical discourse.
1.1.1.3 Or perhaps sin is perfection, and only if we live in constant sin the world will be perfected. I am not arguing it's necessarily this way, just that it's a possibility, and we cannot know.
1.1.1.4 Summary: as long as there is no definition for what is perfect, the first part of your proof is defeated. And if you define 'perfection' as 'living in accordance with God' or something to that effect, you are defeating yourself, because then you presuppose God.
1.1.2. Another serious problem is that there is no definition of 'sin.' It is like the hollow terms 'good and evil,' to which westerners attach importance, and just like those terms, it is very easy to knock down. Various cultures have various conceptions of morality. Some of them believe, just like you do, in good and evil, but what is good to them might be evil to you, and what is good to you might be evil to them. For example, human sacrifice is evil to you, but to the ancient Aztecs, it was a good thing. Others believe that 'good' and 'evil' do not exist at all, replacing them with a different system of values. Tinzireans are sceptical towards the idea of 'good-evil;' we have our own moral compass instead, consisting of 'dishonourable' and 'honourable.' You can be honourable and still do things that westerners would regard as evil. Similarly, some acts that are good according to you westerners are seen as dishonourable to us. Sparing an enemy on the battlefield is ostensibly a 'good' thing to do, from the perspective of your culture. From the perspective of my culture, it is dishonourable, and therefore you should not do it.
1.1.2.1 Thereby, we can safely surmise that 'good' and 'evil' are relative terms (i.e. 'good' to one man is 'evil' to another).
1.1.2.2 The notion of sin is inexplicably tied to the notion of good and evil. It is evil to be sinful, right? If you do good deeds, you are not sinning.
1.1.2.3 Summary: the notion of sin is too whimsical to be a part of your argument, and since 'sin' is 'evil,' the nonexistence of 'evil' also disproves the existence of 'sin.' If you say there is a universal morality, the burden of proof shifts to you, and you better do a good job explaining why you think it exists.
1.2 I will hereby only answer some specific points that I think are erroneous in your Step 1.
1.2.1. You wrote:

For example, it is no longer common practice, except in Islam, to sacrifice their own children on altars to their god or gods.

Child sacrifices have no part in Islamic theology.
1.2.2. You wrote:

Just these past two centuries we see slavery is no longer ever permitted, but in ancient times it was deemed manageable for the period due to economic challenges in organizing human affairs.

Once again, slavery is not evil or good, since neither of those two actually exists. Tinzireans certainly consider slavery to be honourable, and we still practice it in various forms, though it might not always be legal. So if slavery is a good thing for us--and it was a good thing for the Romans, for the Islamic world in the middle ages, for the Israelites, for the Aztecs, for the Incas, for the Chinese, and for thousands of other civilization--then how come it no longer existing is seen as an improvement? Certainly, the lack of slavery ought to be seen as a catastrophe, as something bad that has befallen humanity.

1.2.2.1 Tinzireans consider human sacrifice honourable. It is a good way to honour the gods, nothing more. Many other cultures consider and have considered human sacrifice to be good. The Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incas spring to mind, but they are only the three most well-known. Vikings as well as Romans also engaged in such rituals. To us, the lack of human sacrifice is sinful. You might think that it is sinful to sacrifice; we think it is sinful to not sacrifice.

Conclusion: Until you can show me beyond doubt that sin exists, and that a perfect world is a sinless world, I can safely ignore this part of your argument. Furthermore, it is not really relevant to your proof.

2. Step II

2.1. You sum up the second part of your proof as:

Nothing in nature or time happens all by itself. It always has a cause. Therefore, since nature must always have a cause, the only possibility that exists is the uncreated created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ (you are welcome to compare Jesus to any figure).

To put it simply you are saying: "everything has a cause except for God, and therefore God is actually the cause of everything." There are quite a few fallacies and errors in this.
2.1.1. That nothing in nature happens by itself is wrong. I do believe that causality exists, or at least for macroscopic events, but it is quite easy to formulate a philosophical system that does not involve any causality.
2.1.1.1 For example, imagine a universe in which the Many-World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is absolutely true. The moment you drop a rock in this hypothetical universe, an infinite amount of different things happen to that rock. Each of these 'things' that happen to the rock are referred to, for brevity's sake, as 'paths.' So when you drop a rock, there are an infinite amount of paths, and all of them happen at the same time. One path would involve the rock turning into a sheep, in another part the rock flies away into outer space, and in a third part it explodes, and so on, ad infinitum. Think of the universe as a tree with an infinite number of branches splitting of from the point in time where you drop the rock. Each of these branches represents a potential path. In other words, by dropping a rock, or by doing anything whatsoever, you are generating an infinite number of additional universes. Now, of course the person dropping the rock is also split up into an infinite number of himself. From the point of view of each copy of the rock-dropper, what happens to the rock seems to be causally related to him letting it go. For example, the copy of the rock-dropper in the universe in which the rock became a sheep would say that there is a causal link between him dropping the rock and it turning into a sheep. Ergo, you'd have an illusion of causality.
2.1.1.1.1 Attn: I am not arguing that the universe works that way, only that we could live in a universe in which causality is merely an illusion and does not exist. You have to show why causality must be real in order for part two of your proof to have any potency. As long as the possibility that causality is just an illusion exists, part two of your proof has no power.
2.2 That said, you do not manage to prove that God is the cause of the universe. You say that everything has a cause, but then you add that God does not, as an exception. In other words--"everything happens because of some antecedent, but God doesn't." That's an example of the ad hoc fallacy. Read this: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Ad%20Hoc%20Rescue. It gives some more information about what ad hoc entails and why we ought to avoid it.
2.2.1. In other words, since it is ad hoc to say that God is the only thing that is uncaused, part II of your perfect proof falls apart. You offer no evidence whatsoever for why God is uncreated and uncaused, i.e. while perhaps he is the one who started the universe, you have not in any way demonstrated that he is causeless. Saying "none can compare to Christ" will not get you out of this dilemma, because whether other people can compare to Christ or not is irrelevant: you still haven't demonstrated that God is causeless. You then go on to state (in part III of your proof):

God is, by the definition of the word, Uncreated

This is circular--"God is uncreated because he is God"--and it does not save your proof. You have no evidence that the term "God of the Bible" entails "being uncreated" outside of the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the God of the Bible will not get you very far in any debate. To recapitulate, since you seem to have some difficulties following logical lines of thought, what I am saying is that the fact that the Bible calls God uncreated does not make him uncreated.

Conclusion: You need to demonstrate, independent of the Bible, why God is uncreated. You also need to prove that causality exists. As I said above, it is easy to envision a world in which causality doesn't apply. Our universe could be a universe in which causality is a mere illusion, and unless you offer proof to the contrary, I can safely ignore this part of your argument.

3. Step III

3.1 I have nothing to say about this--it is irrelevant.

4. Step IV

4.1 I have nothing to say about this--it is irrelevant.

Conclusion

Your proof of God really consists of two parts: one part trying to show that an "eternity of past cause and effect would result in a sinless world," and one part in which you attempt to prove that nothing in the universe is causeless except for God, and that God by definition is causeless. Both I have demonstrated to be quite wrong and off track.

[Churchwork]

What stifles the discussion is mindless repetition instead of responding the burden of the proof that is on you, so infractions are necessary to help you change your behavior, because this is not a forum for belligerency as was exhibited by Ah Puch whom you mentioned. Let's see if you could disprove the proof, or if you are just repeating what others already said and proven wrong.

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.
1.1.1.1 Since you overlooked the exponential progression of conscience in, your point made in 1.1.1.1 is invalid.
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.
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, so for our purposes of the proof is adequate enough to simply say sin exists, otherwise we would not throw people in jail. It is not justified today if some nations kill their children as sacrifices and that is acceptable; it is simply wrong, otherwise you condone such activity and that makes you sick-minded.
1.1.2.1 Since God of the Bible is proven by the uncreated Creator must exist and Jesus is God because He proved it by His resurrection, we know it is true there is singular truth which is God's truth in all things being summed up in Christ. 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.
1.1.2.2 You could even be sinning by doing good deeds, because those deeds were not authorized by God, but are authored by your flesh in the "good self". In other words, though it was a good deed by the world's standards, God did not want you to do it, for He wanted you to do something else. God is concerned with whether it originated from Him and you follow His good will.
1.1.2.3 Since evil exists, e.g. taking down the twin towers, then sin exists. The burden of the proof remains you to say sin does no exist, for it is in the dictionary as existing without even mention of God. Sin exists, for we would not put people in jail. 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.
1.2 You have free-choice.
1.2.1 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. Though these appear to be voluntary, it is almost as if they have been tricked into doing it, like a child thrown into the fiery mouth of Molech.
1.2.2 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. You're a bad guy that you would still support this. This is evil. It is a sin. It is universally unacceptable. You'll go to jail if you try to do this. 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.
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.
2.1.1 Bottom line you have no evidence for something happening all by itself like puff the magic dragon.
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.
2.1.1.1. There is no possibility for us to think causality is an illusion.
2.2 You are misrepresenting Step 2 of the proof by saying God is the exception. Not at all. Rather, He is the product of the evidence. That's why Step 3 is introduced because you are arguing against a quality that is not God of the Bible. It does not say He is an exception. Try to stay on topic. Rather, because the everything in nature has a cause, nature can't cause itself; ergo, the uncreated Creator is the cause as the only viably known possibility.
2.2.1 Since God remains causeless, then compare Jesus to any who said they were God when they walked the earth. God by definition being uncreated is not the proof for God being uncreated; it is just the quality of God in Step 3 we are talking about and deciding if it is true or not. The proof is that nothing in nature happens all by itself, so the uncreated Creator must exist. That God is uncreated does not depend on false views that have no support outside the Bible. The Bible saying God is uncreated is not the proof God is uncreated. The proof God is uncreated is because nothing in nature happens all by itself. Jesus is God because of His resurrection. Most skeptical scholars use Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 to say Paul was being genuine in which he said he met with the Apostles and they agreed on their multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings seeing, talking, walking, eating with and touching Jesus in His resurrected body. Notice we are proving Jesus is God and God is uncreated by the testimony of the non-believing scholars, because they do not know how to explain this away that which they admit Paul was being authentic.
3.1 As we have seen, Step 3 is vital, because it makes no sense for you to argue against a quality of God's that is not His. You would then be arguing against something else and be off topic.
4.1 Step 4 remains important because some try to contend, why can't there be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural (if not the natural). The exponential progression of conscience disallows this.
Conclusion: God is not in the universe. He is the Creator outside the universe. Nothing you said was not already presented before in this thread. Boring repetition and infraction. Obviously, you can't do anything but repeat what was already in this thread. The burden of the proof is on you to do more than that.

[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