Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
No, but people can be mistaken, and as we know Paul truly believed that it was important for the world to believe in Resurrection, in order to follow Christianity -- is it so hard to believe he might also fabricate a story?, if he was obviously willing to give his own life - and that of others to encourage people to believe.
People don't die for something they know is a lie. To be mistaken would be group hallucinations which are impossible according to modern psychology.

Unless you can come up with proof that a mistake, or deception is not a possible alternative you must admit that there is reasonable doubt for resurrection, the unprecedented nature of the supposed event alone should demand more thorough investigation and more doubt on your part.
Deception is ruled out because people don't die for something they know is a lie. Group hallucinations are not possible so that rules out a mistake.

My viable explanation is this - it probably didn't happen because there are much more rational and viable explanations than a dead person magically reanimating.
If God created the universe, then He doesn't have to use magic. Since you can't find a viable explanation to explain it away, it must be true, Jesus is God.

This isn't rocket science and should be obvious to anyone who is honest and rational. Unless you can provide some overwhelming proof that it actually happened, which you have not - you must admit some doubt.
The proof was already given, the multiple attestation in 12 different group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

You state I offer no alternative explanations right before quoting, some that I have.
I addressed all your attempts and further attempts. Each of your attempts fail and I explain how.

Yes but this is all drawn from the bible, my point is you can't depend on this as unquestioned truth - without absolute trust - which is unwarranted and irrational.
But there are valid reasons to accept at least some things in Scripture such as Paul saying he met with James, Peter and John who testified they all had seen Jesus physically with Paul seeing Jesus objectively.

That's my point Paul understood - extremely clearly - and conveyed the importance of this belief and the implications of its absence with great clarity. Christianity falters if there is any doubt in this story - doubt you would have if you considered the rationally viable alternatives - which you have not disproven.
You're missing the point. People don't die for something they know is a lie, so Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and the Apostles who told him they saw Jesus resurrected physically.

Don't you believe that God happens all by himself - like magic?
The uncreated is proven to exist, because nature can't can't cause itself. God didn't happen, but He always was. So you don't need magic.

Magic? I did not say magic i said unknown physical causes, and there is "happening" only if you assume absolutely everything has a cause and a beginning - which is a fairly large assumption - with no backing on your part.
God is not physical, so it would be illogical to insist upon a physical cause for God. And it is illogical to ask for a cause to that which is uncreated. The preponderance of evidence is all things in nature have a cause. The odds are more than a trillion to 1 against you. It's like you have to be God to know if God exists which is pompous.

Would you admit you were delusional?
No. The evidence is clear, nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore, you must be delusional.

I think the idea of dead people being alive again after days being dead sounds "Magical"
Supernatural.

Obviously it isn't impossible - since cells exist
It's impossible Naturalistically and mathematically based on the laws of the universe.

In case you haven't noticed the attribute that all life shares is the ability to reproduce - you don't need to make each one randomly
How does the first replicating cell come into being when there has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe since the big bang?

claiming or stating this - no matter how much you want it to be true - does not make it true.
I know it is true, because you can't find a naturalistic explanation.

Objective reality has nothing to do with people agreeing about moral judgments - it is a conception of reality as distinct from people’s perceptions and thoughts about it. - i.e. the subjective.
I didn't saying objective reality has anything to do with people agreeing about it; rather, objective morality is observed by people agreeing about. Since it exists how can objective morality come from a universe prior to sentient life not having objective morality?

I believe that is an oxymoron
Why is objective morality an oxymoron? Since it is proven to exist.

Your right nature isn't moral - morality is all about human judgment, about what they consider acceptable/ unacceptable behavior - which is totally subjective - i.e. dependent on the person. Oh and yes most people agree that they don't want to be murdered, and no this does not make the moral "murder is unacceptable" objective - people generally don't want to be killed - not people will not kill another person.
There are things all humans agree on which indicates an objective morality and not merely dependent on the person. Everyone agrees they don't want other people to kill them, so that is an objective moral. Even if one person somewhere wanted to be killed, the preponderance of evidence of agreement indicates it is an objective moral.

Again you have not proven that there is a cause that must be God you simply state it, a lot.
The proof was given, since there are trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Yes - if your argument is based on the premise that no possible physical cause can exist well in order to prove (rather than assuming or inferring) that wouldn't you need to rule out all physical causes - which would require knowing them? or as you put it "to be God" - to think such would be extremely arrogant but that is the point upon which your proof rests.
You are the one demanding you would have to be God to know if God exists. That is indeed absurd. In a court of law such extreme absurdity is not required to prove the case. It's like you are playing the lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to 1. But as you keep discovering a trillion more causes the odds continue to increase against you, yet you still hold out. How absurd! This attitude is surely that of someone on his way to Hell.

No , in context with what came before i was saying - that i don't think your flawed proof was arrogant- (your word) - only mistaken, and wishful.
Mistaken how? You don't say. I covered all your responses. You still have the problem also that it appears nothing would convince you, so that seems closed minded.

the "data" you speak of is not "naturalistic" data but testimony, and stories of testimony - I made my point clearly - testimony and records of testimony can be flawed and fabricated - I even suggested a valid alternative motivation - only because you suggested motivation alone could be proof - which it isn't.
This testimony is data. You need a naturalistic explanation to counter it, but none have been forthcoming. You couldn't present any feasible flaw or fabrication. Vaguely saying so doesn't count. We are still left with the fact that people don't die for something they know is a lie. Therefore, they did not lie when they truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected.

so "trillions of causes and effects" - all of which are natural and physical rather and supernatural - suggest to you that the universe cannot possibly have a basis in natural causes, that complex chemistry cannot arise from a physical cause - even though it has been proven and demonstrated in experiments, and there must be as you put it "magic" to explain things we cannot.
Complex chemistry does arise from natural causes, but not for forever in the past, due the exponential progression of conscience and the law of heat death. Something coming into existence all by itself is magic, but an uncreated Creator creating intelligence is creating out of Himself and thus, not by magic.

Oh and I am closed minded and illogical to think that maybe the physical world might possibly be sufficient, without assuming supernatural causes by dismissing all possible physical explanations unknown and even the known and demonstrated.
Yes, you are being closed minded because there can't exist an eternity of the past of cause and effects due to the exponential progression of conscience and law of heat death. Therefore, the universe alone is not sufficient, which proves the existence of the uncreated as there is no other available possibility. If the natural can't be the ultimate cause, then it is the uncreated. It is also illogical to assume if there was one last thing that man didn't know to hold out for it possibly being proof the universe happened all by itself or always existed, because that goes against all odds. It's like you are the worst gambler every known to man.

How illogical of me, how contrary to the evidence of what? Testimony from a strongly biased Paul - couldn't possibly be a lie The agreed upon fact that the natural world can be accounted for in every other way by physical means ( i.e. cause and effect) That somehow leads to you to the conclusion that we should dismiss the possibility of physical causes in order to necessitate the supernatural.
People don't die for something they know to be a lie. This was many individuals who eye-witnessed Jesus alive from the dead and not individually only, but in many different group settings. The universe can't account for itself and we know it couldn't have always existed, because of heat death and the exponential progression of conscience. So yes, you're being illogical the fact that you are still on your way to Hell.

If you want to remain as you are that is your choice but I have shown you many logical flaws, assumptions and possible alternative explanations - all of which you dismiss out of hand - without bothering to address with consideration - or without recourse to your beliefs. Again I will say you can chooses to remain as you are and believe in God - I only ask you to admit that this belief underlies everything else - and is the foundation on which you maintain your proof - directly and indirectly - since it cannot be arrived at and believed with certainty by reason alone - which always commands one to doubt - something you seem to lack willfully.
As you have seen, I have responded to all your attempts. Each one has failed. Realize though many Christians come to Christ by revelation and not by any other means, that doesn't take away from proving God's existence. Naturally it has been shown, the only possibility is, Jesus is God. You can tell I am really born-again. You should admit all your opposition has one underlying cause, which is your hostility, the same hostility and independency Adam had at the fall.

I have given reasons for doubting the proof, flaws in arguments, and reliance on unproven assumptions - you can be honest and accept this - or continue to dismiss them in dubious fashion.
I have responded to all your points, one by one, showing how all your attempts have failed which gives people strong reason to believe you are going to Hell.

I now understand why no-one has succeeded - you consider the proof perfect, believe in it with the unquestioning faith that is usually reserved for God. This is a faith that reason will not shake - but once more for I will ask - do any of these considerations seem in any way relevant, possible, plausible or reasonable to you? please be honest with me and yourself.
There are things you can know are absolutely true in life. Like 2+2=4. There is no need to question this. Everything you have said has no merit whatsoever. I am only abiding in the evidence and your inability to disprove the proof for God an the resurrection of Jesus.

Reasonable Doubt?

  • Testimony - it requires trust to believe - it is not physical proof but written record - and so has no place in a "perfect proof"

  • -Fabrication by Paul - (possible motivation) for the purpose of furthering Jesus' message - a plausible alternative

  • Without first believing in God when considering the proof the Bible's statements do not hold authority or truth by fiat, and are questionable like any other testimony -

  • Most if not all information regarding Jesus is drawn from the Bible.

  • Other accounts for an empty tomb
    • The body was stolen
    • He didn't die
    • It is just a story

  • Proving rather than claiming that there can be no possible physical explanation - "a miracle" - would require absolute knowledge of the physical world - so to does claiming that all physical reality has an attribute of any sort - generally when laws are made in science they are provisonal - The laws of Universal Gravitation - were Universal - until we discovered exceptions to them

  • claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional


  • A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.
Yes, you should trust in the written record they believed they saw Jesus resurrected because of so much multiple corroboration.

Fabrication by Paul is not plausible since people don't die for something they know is a lie.

The proof I have given you does not depend on assuming God exists first.

There are 17 early non-Christian sources, but they should not be considered primary sources like the text of the New Testament.

Jesus would be a liar if He didn't die and the disciples could hardly follow a man claiming to be resurrected who could barely walk from all the flogging, his chest pierced and John and the women lying about seeing Jesus die on the cross, or Joseph of Arimathea claiming he put spices on Jesus dead corpse.

There is nothing to indicate the Scriptures are just a story book, as these were real people with real lives. Clement of Rome and Polycarp claimed to have known the Peter and John.

A stolen body doesn't account for the resurrection appearances or the guards protecting the tomb.

There is no known naturalistic law that allows for people to rise from clinical death so when people do rise from a clinical death (there are documented cases) and show they could see things they could not have known if they didn't come out of their bodies, indicates that an after life.

The resurrection of Jesus wasn't claimed to happen all by itself, but Jesus did it, for He is God.

We are not claiming the resurrection is true because they truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Rather, we are claiming the resurrection is true because you can find no naturalistic explanation that fits the data almost all skeptical scholars accept surrounding the events.

Having been raised and schooled in a Christian environment, the question of God's existence has always been of interest to me. In the interest of open dialogue I must admit that I am an agnostic, having never found the argument for believing satisfactory, although recently I have perceived that there is something eternal, unchanging and pervasive – an underlying cosmic order which is very beautiful. I have always been fond of talking about religion, though my friends (most of which are Christians of varying degrees) inevitably become uncomfortable when talk turns to questions of proof, justification or cause for belief in God. You however do not strike me as someone who will be uncomfortable discussing this.
I am quite the opposite. I was born-again when I was 33 years of age and nobody in my family background had anything to do with Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement.
What makes you think you would recognize Him if He came?

Assumptions
·Cause and effect
·Sin is real
Premise: Sin exists
Premise: Sin decreases with time
Mechanism: “evolving/progression of conscience”
Measure: Violent Crime, historical atrocities examples
Premise: With infinite time sin converges on nothing (i.e. sin does not exist)
Conclusion: Therefore time is not infinite/ eternal
Cause and effect are shown in trillions of causes and effects. If sin was not real then there would be no need for jails. Sin is decreasing with time as we observe the exponential progression of conscience. It is an observable phenomenon. Crime rate and atrocities per capita continue to go down. The convergence is approximating near sinlessness if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as we see how rapidly the exponential progression of conscience has been moving the past six millennia.

Talking of human sins? – Though the universe may/ or may not be eternal humans have not existed for eternity. This is a simple explanation of why this argument is flawed. Since humans are a recent addition to this universe, regardless of the validity of the mechanism suggested human sinfulness cannot be used imply that the universe had a beginning, is eternal, or cyclic in nature – as humans have existed for a comparatively miniscule amount of time. That is to say the domain of your “calculus” graph is grossly exaggerated and so flawed.
True, humans have not existed for eternity, but if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, mathematically humans would have been derived from that past and existed in the approximation to that eternity so mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. There is nothing to support magical cycles; only heat death and the exponential progression of conscience disallows cycles. Cycles are mindless assumptions. We need to look at the evidence which is the evidence of the exponential progression of conscience. Cycles have the attribute of happening out of nothing after heat death occurs, but nature always has a cause.

In this measure sin is considered equivalent and synonymous with violent crime, regardless of whether violent crime is actually increasing or decreasing worldwide. I surmise that you would agree that sin is more inclusive than this. If we consider only the dictates of the ten commandments, it should be apparent that sinfulness is more likely increasing greatly rather than decreasing – in contradiction to the premise that sin decreases with time. Think of coveting, marital infidelity, wars – it may not be that sin has decreased – but sin is no longer considered by many sinful ( think usury and its recent effects), and we have become better at both sinning and the powerful at subjecting the weak – to the point where they do so willingly. The measure of the current level of sinfulness is inadequate and doubtful, as is the contention that the level of sin is decreasing.
Sin is decreasing exponentially and conscience is increasing exponentially. For example, women can vote now this past century. Human sacrifices so prevalent among the nations has ended. Polygamy and slavery are outlawed. Deaths due to war are down per capita. The list goes on and on. The evidence is overwhelming.

The sample size of the violent graph is too small, geographically and temporally to draw these conclusions from it.
The graph (picture not shown) spans 6000 years since the first God-conscious man. That's all the data we have; we have to go with what we got. And we got 13.7 billion years of no heat death yet.

The claim that there is some mechanism by which people’s consciences are becoming more evolved is highly questionable, and seemingly disproved by the fact the mechanism is not working. No proof of the mechanism itself is offered only a vague mish mash of scientific sounding words, and a graph without quantities! One example of past atrocities does not make a proof. Your proof falls back on this supposed progression of conscience so many times yet it is unproven, and undemonstrated.
We don't care about the mechanism, just the fact that it is happening to prove the fact the universe can't always have existed. The exponential progression of conscience is demonstrable proven, and you couldn't overturn the cases given.

Secondly, I will say that sin is not in the same category as physical objects – sin is behavior that we judge to be in violation with moral precepts – regardless of their origin Christian or otherwise. Consider that sin may be seen to be decreasing only because our definition and awareness of sin is waning when compared to the more far reaching, and powerful effects one person can have on others in the modern world.
The same comparative measures across all centuries shows the exponential progression of conscience. The same standards across the board. Therefore, awareness of sin is not waning, but improving.

Slavery still exists. Some People are stilling willing to have slaves if allowed.
On a per capita basis, slavery has decreased.

Assumption: The universe is a thing; time is a thing, universal causality
Premise: Everything has a cause
Premise: The Universe had a beginning (i.e. is not eternal from STEP 1)
Conclusion The Universe had a first cause (read creator)
Conclusion # 2 The only possibility is God/Jesus. – Why?
Preponderance of evidence is overwhelming everything has a cause. The universe must have a beginning because of Step 1. The must have a first cause because of Step 1. Conclusion remains: the uncreated Creator must exist and Jesus is God because none can compare and He proved it by His resurrection.

Since I consider Step #1 flawed it follows that this argument is also flawed
Since you were shown how you couldn't find a flaw in Step 1 it remains unchallenged.

Even assuming that the universe had a beginning, absence of knowledge of that beginning does not logically dictate that the only possibility can be God. Inference from Ignorance is not a form of proof; it is not logical or factual.
Since no other alternative is even fathomable, and humankind across all races and ages worshiped what they called God, the overwhelming conclusion is the uncreated must exist who created intelligently. To hold out for something else is silly. It's like saying you have to be God to know if God exists. You make it impossible to prove God exists with your approach. How is that coming to God with an honest heart?

And so as the argument goes the very first “natural effect” had a cause that could not be natural.
That's correct, because nature can't cause itself.

“Nothing in nature happens by itself” is a way of begging the question, for a supernatural first mover. A logical – simply stating this does not make it true.
Logic dictates if the natural can't be the cause it must be the supernatural. There are only 2 possibilities: natural or supernatural. There is not an extranatural.

Nor does it mean the opposite which you have clearly assumed to be true by stating “the only possibility that exists we can conclude and fits is the uncreated Created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ.” This is an undeniable flaw. You have stated your conclusion as an unproven premise within your proof – this is a logical flaw, a deal breaker.
The only possibility is the uncaused. No alternative exists. The proof is the natural can't cause itself and Jesus can't resurrect naturally. By you forever being wrong is not breaking the deal, since the deal will be fulfilled by you going to Hell.

If you ask “Who is the creator of the universe?” it is called begging the question, because the question implies without discussion the premise that there is a creator, even so you will find no rational or logical basis for assuming this creator is one in the same as Christian’s biblical God – that is merely wishful thinking and faith, as is assuming the bible is entirely or even mostly inerrant despite translation errors, current changes, known historical copying errors, apocrypha, a compendium of contradictions and the widely differing interpretations of the text.
The creator has been established since nature can't cause itself. We know the Creator is the God of the Bible for none can compare to Christ and Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection. You testify this because you can't disprove the evidences supplied. You're left with wishful thinking that it might not be so, so you can remain gorged in your sin nature without consequences (you hope). Textual criticism makes it a certainty we have the right original documents. No alleged contradictions have not been answered by Christian scholars. 99.5% of all Bibles are the same. That can hardly be construed as wide difference. Current changes to update today's English or other language pose no problems. Apocrypha, adding books to the Bible, can be shown to not fit in with the 66 books.

The Universe is not an object but the set of all objects. A forest is not caused it is simply a collection of trees, it is the trees that are caused – by seeds – then cells – then genetics – then the molecular and atomic and finally quantum level. Respondents will mention evolution at these different hierarchies, and perhaps abiogenesis at the molecular level, and physics at the atomic level. Respondents will argue mentioning quantum physics, because it is currently the best model for explaining the origins and behavior of matter at its most fundamental level – the quantum level. Scientists anticipate that at the most elementary basis matter and forces will be found harmonious or an expression of each other. This has already been partly achieved with through wave-particle duality. Yet in the absence of knowledge scientists will offer only hypothesis, especially in the realm of cosmology which is heavily theoretical, the widely known “Big Bang” hypothesis is currently accepted as the most plausible scientific theory for the long history of the universe – however there is no suggestion of Jesus as a physical cause. It is worth considering that this hypothesis though widely supported might not necessarily be true, and makes no comment on what the universe was like before this moment – only afterwards. Perhaps our universe is cyclic, or matter and anti-matter spontaneously erupts from annihilation into separated pairs, and the universe is in fact an eternal stage. The fact remains- it is not known, assuming you know is just wrong.
Abiogenesis is proven undoable naturalistically/mathematically. We know Jesus is the cause of the universe by proof of His resurrection in what you would expect a long 1500 years of religio-historical context entering into His creation and resurrecting to prove He is God and wants a personal relationship with us and forgives sins to give everlasting life. Whoever doesn't want this gets to have everlasting conscious awareness in Hell, such as yourself after you are resurrected. In layman's terms, you're a bad guy in God's eyes, for you reject the greatest love ever known to man, and God is not far from any of our hearts, so you are without excuse. We have talked about the impossibility of a cyclical universe because heat death and the exponential progression of conscience disallow it. Indeed the universe is eternally existing in the future, but not the past.

40 - Prove It. You Can’t.
Read the Bible's authors in the 66 books.

"why can't God have a creator?" – well really why not. It’s not enough just to say he can’t. To base your reason for thinking otherwise on the bible is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. You can’t believe in God because it says he exists in the bible, and then believe what the bible says because the bible says it is written by God. I don’t understand how people cannot see that as the awful logic it is.
The uncreated is proven because nature can't cause itself. If you want to say there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural (Step 4), then realize this theory fails also still due to the same reason, the exponential progression of conscience and heat death. Remember, the 4 Step Proof never says first God exists, but we come to the realization God exists by the proof of nature.

“Not once has He ever sinned in the 66 books of God's Word.” Is murder a sin, infanticide a sin, impregnation outside of marriage? If you had the power to stop an atrocity with great ease, but chose not to would you consider yourself moral, without sin. If Jesus had the power to prevent his death, is not allowing it a form of suicide.
If God doesn't allow sin, then there would not be free-will. If you can't have the choice to rebel, then you're just a robot. God wants a relationship with free-willed beings, not robots.

No it’s simply because the proof is not perfect – far from it. It fails at being persuasive, encompassing, clear or logical
.
But you can't show it is not persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical, and that is why it is persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical. And so the reason you reject the proof God gives when He says you can prove Him in nature is this: “The reason why unregenerates outside the kingdom of heaven can't sense or reason out that these 4 Steps are true is because God has not given it to them to be able to understand.” In other words, you don't come to God with an honest heart. You're being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

No, I do not consider atheism / agnosticism as faith positions, as both are negatively defined, saying only what a person is not, rather than what they are. Positive statements exclude many possibilities, negative statements exclude one specifically.
The evidence is given, so you have no excuse for being an atheist or agnostic. All you have then is Hell. Your faith is certainly blind faith and delusional faith, since it goes contrary to the evidence. Negative or positive, it is still mindless faith.

Whereas faith in Christ is proven.

Agnosticism is not “thinly veiled” atheism but a subtly different perspective. Strong atheists declare that there is no possibility of God/s existing through argument; strong agnostics say that proof either way is not rationally possible. Both are alike in that they declare an absence of belief in God.

Agnostics = no belief
Atheist = no possibility

The difference from believers is that this decision is based on reasoning
It's hardly subtle at all. It is simply saying you don't know either way, whereas atheism is making a definite claim it knows God does not exist. But since the evidence is overwhelming and unchallenged, agnosticism is really just "thinly veiled" atheism. Agnosticism does not say proof is not possible, but rather it does not know presently. When you say proof cannot be known either way, that is neither atheism nor agnosticism. But it is "thinly veiled" atheism, making it impossible to prove God, showing your heart is closed.

Atheism can never be limited to absence of belief for it is a belief there is no God. Similarly, agnosticism is not an absence of belief, for it is believing God might exist if proof could be found. And to take the position there is no way to prove if God exists or doesn't exist is also not absence of belief, for it is a position of belief that there is no way to prove either way. Of course, this goes contrary to what we discover in nature we can prove a great many things an disprove a great many other things.

What you may have seen through our discussions is you are always wrong, for that is the nature of someone going to Hell; that is, when discussing origins and who God is. Think of it this way. You make your world-view in your own image. The universe is a mostly cold and dead place.

Keep trying. Don't give up. It is the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God and Minimal Facts Aproach that remain unchallenged.