4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Churchwork]

Churchwork,
Your constraint in Step 3 is meaningless, because its perfectly conceivable that god exists, but the very specific and particular Christian God does not exist. Steps 1 and 2 could be true and prove the existence of God, but they even constraining all discussion of your proof to the Christian God doesnt actually make the Christian God more plausible than all the others; the constraint is irrelevant. A deistic conception of God could be correct, where the deistic god (for some reason or another) creates the universe and abandons it to move along at its own devices, where the existence of humans is merely an unintended consequence of creation. God could create the universe without making human beings into a special creation, or even caring about humans or knowing about them at all, and it would be completely consistent with your first two steps in your proof.

Is it really a constraint to ask that you stay on topic which is what Step 3 is for? For example, let's say you try to disprove the god of mormonism. How does that relate to the Bible? It doesn't. Since mormons believe God is gods, you would be trying to disprove tritheism of mormon gods being one God, but Christians don't believe in that heresy anyway. So we say, hello mcfly! Hehe.

Whether another god exists is irrelevant, since the proof is about whether God of the Bible exists, and so far as we have seen Step 1 & Step 2 solidly show us the uncreated creator is God of the Bible given Christ and His resurrection given by the mercy of God the Father.

Step 3 does not say not to talk about other gods, not at all, only that if you are trying to disprove God of the Bible, don't do so by thinking you are arguing a point against Him but is really arguing a point against some god that is not God. Such a simple step should not be so complicated for you unless you are just being belligerent.

Deism has already been proven false since God is not vain. You don't just create something for no reason at all. Though you might, God would not. Nothing God does is unintended. Since we are created in His image and the most intelligent beings on earth we are more than merely a passing thought. The probability of life on other planets is so remotely small, it is very unlikely. A reaonable person says, humans stand out as something extraordinary.

The very fact that the universe can move along could not have been possible if it was not accounted for to be able to do so by God. Moreover, God if He could, would not stop at just some natural elements, but He is going to create a creation to the fullest, including making man in His image. It is so unfortunate for you that you prefer to go to hell; that is, you like being a bad person.

It would be completely inconsistent with the first two steps that God would abandon His creation, since along the 4 Steps is the principle of a caring God who wants to walk with His creation, not an evil god that leaves to fend for yourself. The latter would be quite unreasonable, unrighteous and unholy of the God. In recording the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and comparing all know proclamations of God, we see none can compare to Christ.

The constraint that we should only talk about the Christian God is artificial, and if you were trying to prove any other god, you could use the exact same arguments to prove the truth of every religion, so long as you changed Step 3 ever-so-slightly so that a critic is only permitted to talk about whatever god another wants.

The assumption you make that only the Christian God can be talked about is your misreading. Remember, step 3 doesn't say you can only talk about God of the Bible, but rather if you are going to try to disprove God of the Bible, it would not serve any purpose to do so by trying to disprove a point of some god that Christians don't agree with anyway. Do you see the error in your thinking?

You can't use the 4 Step Proof for every religion for only one religion has Christ embedded in it, and that is Christianity.

Do you see how you are reaching in your arguments to misreading the Proof?