4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Will]

If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had nearly an eternity to be perfected without sin (along the exponential progression of conscience which we observe), but since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

While the propositions above are not demonstrated, the argument is linear, so I take no issue with it.

And thus, we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ.

This part doesn't follow from the first part at all. The first part of section (1) addresses sin, and the limitation of time. The second part, despite having "and thus" in front of it, is completely unconnected to the first part, and then adds "since none can compare to Christ." While that may be true, you have not demonstrated it, so it can't be said to be part of the proof (unless more information is added).

Here, I'm assuming that when you write "proof", you're referring to a logical proof. Having broken two rules of logic in the first section already, it's safe to say that your proof is broken.

I'm not interested in the money you've offered (if I were, then I would be breaking the rules of your forum) so that's not the issue. I'm interested in good arguments.

The first part of your proof is clearly broken, so let's deal with that before we go on.

[Churchwork]

While the propositions above are not demonstrated, the argument is linear, so I take no issue with it.

It's demonstrated in the 4 Step Proof page with several data points. It is exponential, not linear, so you would be taking issue with it, since you think it is linear.

This part doesn't follow from the first part at all. The first part of section (1) addresses sin, and the limitation of time. The second part, despite having "and thus" in front of it, is completely unconnected to the first part, and then adds "since none can compare to Christ." While that may be true, you have not demonstrated it, so it can't be said to be part of the proof (unless more information is added).

Step 1 addresses the expansiveness of time as well as its limitation. Mankind would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So the universe had to have been created. What comes after "And thus," is: "we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ." Logically, it does follows the prior sentence: "since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects."

Throughout the 4 Step Proof I talk about the Minimal Facts Approach, resurrection appearances, multiple attestation, we are all sinners, a sinner needs a Savior, only God will suffice, and how and why only Jesus can be God. I interject with such comments when applicable to that portion of the proof.

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."

Here, I'm assuming that when you write "proof", you're referring to a logical proof. Having broken two rules of logic in the first section already, it's safe to say that your proof is broken.

I'm not interested in the money you've offered (if I were, then I would be breaking the rules of your forum) so that's not the issue. I'm interested in good arguments.

The first part of your proof is clearly broken, so let's deal with that before we go on.

Your two alleged broken rules of logic have fallen back upon you for your mistaken assumptions. Why would you be breaking the rules of the forums desiring the money?

Before we go on, you would need to have a change of mind with regard to your mistaken assumptions.

[Will]

It's demonstrated in the 4 Step Proof page with several data points. It is exponential, not linear, so you would be taking issue with it, since you think it is linear.

I mean I 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 wasn't saying that your progression of conscience wasn't exponential, which I won't argue. Simple misunderstanding.

Of course, you're suggesting a limit on sin, which I think is only a limit on the time that mankind has been around, so again, I agree.

Mankind would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So the universe had to have been created.

Those two statements do not follow. You're suggesting that

1) Mankind would not be sinning given an infinite amount of time, and
2) The universe had to have been created.

There is nothing to connect those two statements logically, and (2) has not been demonstrated.

What comes after "And thus," is: "we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ." Logically, it does follows the prior sentence: "since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects."

That doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you haven't connected the statements above. You've now given:

1) None can compare to Christ, therefore
2) We know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible

There's once again nothing to connect those two statements. If you'd like to connect those statements for me with additional information, that's fine. But as presented, this cannot be considered part of a logical proof.

Your two alleged broken rules of logic have fallen back upon you for your mistaken assumptions.

You'll have to clarify what you think I've mistaken, because I see no way to connect your statements. If you can see clearly how I've misinterpreted connected statements as non sequiturs, you're welcome to fill in the parts that connect them.

There may simply be missing information in the argument that you know, and I do not, and you have forgotten to include it, thinking it was implied.

Why would you be breaking the rules of the forums desiring the money?

Rule 7: Agenda. Taking money from you would necessarily break this rule, as it would hinder the purpose of the forums, which is to bring together 12 informal apostles.

[Churchwork]

I mean I 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 wasn't saying that your progression of conscience wasn't exponential, which I won't argue. Simple misunderstanding.

Of course, you're suggesting a limit on sin, which I think is only a limit on the time that mankind has been around, so again, I agree.

That time is linear says nothing about whether conscience is exponential, for if there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects or not, time is still linear, whether it be a short or long linear. I made no mention of time being linear or not, so you would be wrong in saying that is why I believe there is a limit on time. As to limit on time, I don't believe there is a limit on it going forward, but it was created by God whence it did not exist before.

Either way your usage of time, they are both wrong. I would just chuck the whole thing in the garbage and don't bring it up again, because it is nonsense.

Those two statements do not follow. You're suggesting that

1) Mankind would not be sinning given an infinite amount of time, and
2) The universe had to have been created.

There is nothing to connect those two statements logically, and (1) has not been demonstrated.

The exponential progression of conscience is proven with various data given in the proof which you don't address. You're repeating like a clanging bell. To repeat, the universe had to have been created since mankind would have existed in the proximity to an alleged eternity of the past; therefore, we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you haven't connected the statements above. You've now given:

1) None can compare to Christ, therefore
2) We know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible

There's once again nothing to connect those two statements. If you'd like to connect those statements for me with additional information, that's fine. But as presented, this cannot be considered part of a logical proof.

The connection was made the uncreated exists and the reason was given which you didn't challenge, so then find out He is by comparison. And to repeat yet again, by comparison, throughout the proof, none can compare. You're not be logical. Try not to repeat your mistake.

You'll have to clarify what you think I've mistaken, because I see no way to connect your statements. If you can see clearly how I've misinterpreted connected statements as non sequiturs, you're welcome to fill in the parts that connect them.

There may simply be missing information in the argument that you know, and I do not, and you have forgotten to include it, thinking it was implied.

Your mistaken assumptions are the various paragraphs of the proof don't compare Jesus adequately enough to prove He is God. You assume that the comparing process follows the previous statement as already an accomplished fact even though it was placed in paragraphs to indicate you need to observation the evidence why only Jesus is God. You're assuming something can come from nothing. Whether in another composition or not, nothing is nothing. And claiming the data is not adequate for the exponential progression of conscience, but since you don't observe that data, how can you be so sure?

Rule 7: Agenda. Taking money from you would necessarily break this rule, as it would hinder the purpose of the forums, which is to bring together 12 informal apostles.

The level of agenda is not specified. It's flexible.

[Will]

Either way your usage of time, they are both wrong. I would just chuck the whole thing in the garbage and don't bring it up again, because it is nonsense.

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

The exponential progression of conscience is proven with various data given in the proof which you don't address. You're repeating like a clanging bell.

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.

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

The connection was made the uncreated exists and the reason was given which you didn't challenge, so then find out He is by comparison. And to repeat yet again, by comparison, throughout the proof, none can compare. You're not be logical. Try not to repeat your mistake.

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.

Your mistaken assumptions are the various paragraphs of the proof don't compare Jesus adequately enough to prove He is God.

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.

You assume that the comparing process follows the previous statement as already an accomplished fact even though it was placed in paragraphs to indicate you need to observation the evidence why only Jesus is God.

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

You're assuming something can come from nothing.

I am? Where did I write that?

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