4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Churchwork]

Since almost all scholars have continued to hold the position Paul really believed what he wrote as has been the case all centuries, then the burden on the proof is for you to show otherwise which you fail to address. By constantly asking for the proof and not responding to the answer given is a form of shutting your mind down. Paul met with the apostles he said, multiple times, and they agreed on their eyewitness testimony of the the resurrected Jesus whom they had walked with for three years. Suffice it to say, they talked more than about just the rain when they met.

Your account was removed for your profanity and abusive language. This is not a place for that kind of language. Next time, may you confront the Minimal Facts Approach which remains unchallenged. Normally I put the person through the infraction system, but when you use the language you use, you're gone immediately.

p.s. the same view of gap restoration has been consistent. I am merely agreeing with what scholars were clear on in the 19th century by those such as G. H. Pember.

[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.

[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 their 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 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.

You do attack God with qualities that are not His own for you try to paint Him as an evil being and I showed you how you failed in your attempt. And how sad for you that you want to live in a world of an evil creator. That is a reflection of your own disturbed mind. The point of Step 3 is not to make that mistake of misrepresenting by misunderstanding and misreading.

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. Think of it this way: even in some of those societies if just one person was left, they would carry on that same practice. This was shown to be the case time and time again. And in fact Israel suffered for it because Israel refuse to finish off some of those evil nations, which then built up again and Israel had to defend themselves in war against them yet again. There is reason and support for the actions God calls for.

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 precious blood 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, not to mention the many extra-Biblical accounts within the first and second centuries.

[darwinXIII]

First off, you claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a fact. However, you don't know that. The only reports of Jesus's resurrection came from 150 year after his death. They were based upon hearsay and rumors, and they have nothing to suggest that they are a reliable source of information. If the stain on the Shroud of Turin were carbon-dated to Easter Day
, 33 AD, then you might have some evidence. But the only "evidence" you have is hearsay and mythology.

You seem to completely misunderstand the next part of my argument. I was using conciousness in the place of conscience, just swap the words and you should be fine. Second, mankind does not "approximate" to having existed for eternity. Mankind approximates to having existed for 10,000 years. You completely misunderstand my example of the robot. A robot who was designed to increase his knowledge exponentially would not approximate to having existed for eternity. This is basic common sense. You are maligning the laws of calculus for your own foolish, illogical means.

N est, you claim I make false statements against god. This is false. Every cruel act, every arbitrary law, it is all gods hand or his will as can be found in the first 3 books of the Bible. Second, how do I lack "compassion"? I understand that floods are devestating events. I never said they weren't. However, there is in fact a basis for your flood story. In what is now Iraq, there was a great flood along the Euphrades, a few hundred miles south of Baghdad. A resourceful king commandeered a commercial barge when he saw the flood water was rising. I was filled with merchandise, and he rode the storm out until he ran aground, and then, thankful he had survived, he offered a sacrifice in a nearby temple. There was no God, no sinners, no animals two by two. It was just an interesting piece of folklore that got turned into your holy book. I said that every piece of the Bible has to be perfect, otherwise it isnt god's word. And since a story was so obviously just plagairised by men, you have to throw out your "holy" book. Now, if you just look to the last line, you will see it holds true. You can't prove Jesus existed or was divine, besides some hearsay and rumors written years after his death. So don't point to this as evidence of the true god. Osiris was also said to have risen from the dead, long before Jesus. Unless you prove that Jesus realy did rise from the dead, and to do that, you must prove that the Bible is infallible, nothing in this argument stands.

[Churchwork]

First off, you claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a fact. However, you don't know that. The only reports of Jesus's resurrection came from 150 year after his death. They were based upon hearsay and rumors, and they have nothing to suggest that they are a reliable source of information. If the stain on the Shroud of Turin were carbon-dated to Easter Day
, 33 AD, then you might have some evidence. But the only "evidence" you have is hearsay and mythology.

You are filled with mistaken assumptions. I did not say that the resurrection was a fact, but that it is proven as fact. The reports of Jesus' resurrection did not occur 150 years after only but immediately upon his resurrection orally. How silly to think otherwise that nobody said anything until 150 years later. When someone has a near death experience today to give an analogy people don't wait 150 years to talk about it. They report it immediately. The 66 books were completed within the first century. Soon after the events at hand people began to write. When we say 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2 were written within about 20 years of Jesus' death we don't say it was started to be written at that time but we know with certainty it was finalized at that time. Almost all scholars agree these are the earliest books including the book of James. What does Paul say? He says what was preached early on of the resurrection of Jesus is the same thing that was agreed when he met with James, Peter and John and other apostles when they met (within 5 years of Jesus' death) and discussed their mutual multiple group eyewitness testimonies. Nothing in antiquity is so near to the events at hand and recorded so early on. This holds the highest of historical standards possible. In conclusion there is no basis for your beliefs. And using the Minimal Facts Approach, you don't need to discuss periphery things like the Shroud of Turin. You can make a case for it to HELP prove the resurrection, but it is not necessary. Jesus never said the Shroud of Turin is the key. He said the proof of His resurrection is the key. That is what I have presented to you, using the Minimal Facts Approach. Wake up!

You seem to completely misunderstand the next part of my argument. I was using conciousness in the place of conscience, just swap the words and you should be fine. Second, mankind does not "approximate" to having existed for eternity. Mankind approximates to having existed for 10,000 years. You completely misunderstand my example of the robot. A robot who was designed to increase his knowledge exponentially would not approximate to having existed for eternity. This is basic common sense. You are maligning the laws of calculus for your own foolish, illogical means.

Don't swap consciousness for conscience, because consciousness is not specifically conscience. People will not understand what you are talking about as you had not previous to your rationalizing mentioned conscience even once. You are missing the point of the approximation to an eternity of the past. IF there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects then according to calculus all things not just man's existence would have approximated to the eternity of that past. As was said, I repeat yet again, whether man first came into being yesterday or a million years ago makes no difference then. You overlooked this that which was already said. In your example of a robot you admit the robot was designed; similarly, man was created also and did not happen all by himself. You have not yet seen the error in your thinking. May you do so now. Indeed, if you are created or designed you did not approximate from a supposed eternity of the past but were created such that you were not derived from a faulty eternity of the past, but were created by the uncreated Creator.

N est, you claim I make false statements against god. This is false. Every cruel act, every arbitrary law, it is all gods hand or his will as can be found in the first 3 books of the Bible. Second, how do I lack "compassion"? I understand that floods are devestating events. I never said they weren't. However, there is in fact a basis for your flood story. In what is now Iraq, there was a great flood along the Euphrades, a few hundred miles south of Baghdad. A resourceful king commandeered a commercial barge when he saw the flood water was rising. I was filled with merchandise, and he rode the storm out until he ran aground, and then, thankful he had survived, he offered a sacrifice in a nearby temple. There was no God, no sinners, no animals two by two. It was just an interesting piece of folklore that got turned into your holy book. I said that every piece of the Bible has to be perfect, otherwise it isnt god's word. And since a story was so obviously just plagairised by men, you have to throw out your "holy" book. Now, if you just look to the last line, you will see it holds true. You can't prove Jesus existed or was divine, besides some hearsay and rumors written years after his death. So don't point to this as evidence of the true god. Osiris was also said to have risen from the dead, long before Jesus. Unless you prove that Jesus realy did rise from the dead, and to do that, you must prove that the Bible is infallible, nothing in this argument stands.

You showed no arbitrary cruel act by God in any book of the Bible. Just saying so doesn't count. You need to look at the context and why it was done. Nothing in this intelligent design is arbitrary, but always has a reason just as all things in nature have a cause and effect and nothing happens all by itself. The story of Noah's Ark is indeed true unless shown otherwise for it is well documented and supported by nature and human response to natural disasters. Somebody did indeed gather a great many animals two by two in a boat he built because of an impending flood that God revealed to him would happen. This was not plagiarized but may have even happened on more than one occasion or they are all talking of the same incident time long ago. Moreover, periphery items do not do damage to the Minimal Facts Approach which only concerns itself with the proof of Jesus' resurrection. In other words, you don't need to even claim the whole Bible is inerrant since the Minimal Facts Approach only focuses on the minimal central proof of whether Jesus is God. This is the claim that Jesus makes. You could disagree with something Jesus said in His quoting the Old Testament though you would have to prove it just the same.

Osiris was not resurrected in any document prior to the 66 books of the Bible, nor did he have multiple group recorded eyewitness testimony. Just saying so does not count. Many tried to copy the resurrection of Jesus and there are a number of documents produced after the time of Jesus's resurrection. As well, commentary on Osiris is so sparse it does not have the substantiated documentation that Jesus has.

What matters is that we have multiple eyewitness accounts reported and most scholars (more than 95% in the last half century-as documented by Gary R. Habermas, leading scholar the on the resurrection) are in agreement Paul was authentic in what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. As the apostles went to their martyrdom and we know people do not die for a claim they know is a lie, the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. Modern day psychology says group hallucinations are impossible, so when the apostles said they touched, walked with, ate with and spoke with Jesus in His resurrected physical state, and they agreed on the reason for His doing this, we are standing on solid evidential ground whereas you have nothing to support your ideas except hostility and disobedience to your God. In fact, in the Guinness Book of Records the lawyer who won the most court cases in a row (245) said the case for the resurrection of Jesus is the best case he has ever seen.

By the way your spelling is atrocious. Try to use the spell checker and show some consideration.

[darwinXIII]

For those of you who believe that the God of the Bible is perfect and just, please give me justifications for these following occurences:
God punishes all men, women, children, and animals because humans have wickedness in their thoughts. (Gen 6:7)
God feels remorse, a decidedly human emotion. (Gen 6:6)
God punishes the entire human race because two people ate an apple. (Gen 3:16, 17)
God gets Abram to kill some animals for him, and the needless bloodshed makes him feel better. (Gen 15:9, 10)
God turns a woman into a pillar of salt for looking behind her. (Gen 19:26)
God kills Er for no reason. (Gen 38:7)
God decides to kill Moses for not having his son circumcised. (Ex 4:24-26)
God says that children should be put to death for hitting or cursing their parents. (Ex 21:15, 17)
God says not to allow a witch to live. (22:18)
Bestiality is punishable by death. (22:19)
Anybody who sacrifices to any god besides the god of the Bible has to be "utterly destroyed." (22:20)
God tells the Israelites to kill everyone in the promised land when they get there. (23:27)
God feels better when you kill a bunch of animals, chop them up, wave their body parts in the air, burn the bodies, and sprinkle the blood all around. (29:11-37)
Work on the Sabbath, and you get killed. (31:14)
God tells the sons of Levi to kill every man his neighbor. This results in 3000 deaths. (32:27-28)
Then he kill some more people wit a plague (32:35)
Again, work, or even start a fire, on Sunday, and die. (35:2-3)
Priests at the tabernacle must not uncover their heads, rip their clothes, have holy oil on them when they leave, or drink wine, or God will kill them and curse all their people. (Lev 10:1-3)
God gives the Canaanites leprosy so that Moses can take their land. (14:34)
Both people who commit adultery must be executed(20:10)
If a man has sex with his mother or step-mother, they both must die. (20:11)
If a man sleeps with his daughter in law, they both must die. (20:12)
If a man lies with another man... you guessed it! (20:13)
"Lie" with both your wife and mother-in-law (why anybody, least of all the creator of the universe, would be thinking about this stuff, is beyond me) yep, you all must be burned. (20:14)
If anybody didnt get the message the first time, bestiality is death for the man and the beast. (20:15-16)
Anyone with "familiar spirits" is to be stoned to death. (20:27)
Blasphemy means the entire community gets to stone you to death. (24:10-23)
God tells the israelites to make slaves out of their neighbors and families if they dont believe in him. (25:44-46)
God kills people who look at holy things which are covered. (Numbers 4:15, 20)
people complained, and God killed them all by burning. (11:1)
God punishes chldren because of their great-grandfathers. (14:18)
Again, somebody picks up sticks on the sabbath, and gets stoned, under God's order. (15:32-36)
God might kill you for going to church. (18: 3, 22, 32)
Ask God for it, and he will kill an entire city for you. (21:3)
God kills some of his people with "fiery serpents" (21:6)
God lets Moses kill all the Amorites. Xenophobia: It's FUN! (21:34-35)
God's people will drink the blood of the slain. (23:24)
God is as strong as a fairy-tale creature, and he wil kill all the nations, break their bones, and pierce them with his arrows. (24:8)
Again, God endorses the murder of the canaanites, but if even one survives,, God will kill all the Israelites. (33:55-56)
That's all for now, but eventually I hope to transcribe the juicy bits of all 66 books, proving once and for all that the God of the Bible cannot POSSIBLY be the God that created us, by your own logic, Troy.
And, if anyone wants to prove their faith, then you should drink Drano and put venomous snakes all over your bodies, take a video, and if you are still alive, post it. (Mark 16:17-18)

[Churchwork]

darwinx,

We have already covered this. They were involved in child sacrifices and they would not stop. The only thing that would finally stop them is for their own deaths to occur. That is how corrupted men were that then this becomes the only solution. Praise God no longer do those peoples exist whereas you keep defending them and if you had it your way they would continue to murder their own children in child sacrifices. Even in today's society some crimes are so horrific, man feels the only solution is to put that criminal to death. Even a lifetime in jail won't solve the problem apparently.

To answer all items, sin must be punished. Whereas you would like sin not to be punished, God is a righteous God and does not adhere to your selfish in-compassionate, unjust and insensitive ways.

Your problem is being legalistic in your interpretations. What the Bible is saying is that if someone is strong in the faith all else being equal they would be more equipped to recover from some poisoning. If you have the Holy Spirit working in you and you inadvertently drink some poison not of your own accord, God will give you the strength you would not have had to recover from such an unfortunate occurrence.

May our discussion reveal to you that you are always wrong, so you should repent, and give your life to Christ. Stop being so selfish and self-involved and give it up so that you may be saved from your selfishness and sin nature that surely will be punished in hell if you don't. How many times must you be wrong to realize you are wrong? 100 times? 1,000 times? A reasonable person does not have to be wrong so many times to realize he is wrong. You need not be wrong 10,000 times to know you are wrong. If anything, it should be a sign you are going to hell because if you have not repented after 100 times being wrong, it is not likely you ever will. How sad for you. In fact, most people never get saved and by the age of 13 if you don't get saved it gets increasingly harder and harder to accept the truth.

And that is why the Bible says you are already condemned for hell (John 3.18) which is the only solution for your condition to spend an eternity separated from God and those He has chosen before the foundations of the world. The Word of God reveals how far gone you are. The answer was already given, and you did not respond to the explanation, but chose to repeat yourself. Each time you avoid the answer given and not deal with it, but instead repeat yourself, that is not in keeping with Board Etiquette #6. And deflecting onto other stuff while not nipping in the bud your error is also disingenuous.