That time is linear says nothing about whether conscience is exponential, for if there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects or not, time is still linear, whether it be a short or long linear. I made no mention of time being linear or not, so you would be wrong in saying that is why I believe there is a limit on time. As to limit on time, I don't believe there is a limit on it going forward, but it was created by God whence it did not exist before.
Either way your usage of time, they are both wrong. I would just chuck the whole thing in the garbage and don't bring it up again, because it is nonsense.
The exponential progression of conscience is proven with various data given in the proof which you don't address. You're repeating like a clanging bell. To repeat, the universe had to have been created since mankind would have existed in the proximity to an alleged eternity of the past; therefore, we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.Those two statements do not follow. You're suggesting that
1) Mankind would not be sinning given an infinite amount of time, and
2) The universe had to have been created.
There is nothing to connect those two statements logically, and (1) has not been demonstrated.
The connection was made the uncreated exists and the reason was given which you didn't challenge, so then find out He is by comparison. And to repeat yet again, by comparison, throughout the proof, none can compare. You're not be logical. Try not to repeat your mistake.That doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you haven't connected the statements above. You've now given:
1) None can compare to Christ, therefore
2) We know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible
There's once again nothing to connect those two statements. If you'd like to connect those statements for me with additional information, that's fine. But as presented, this cannot be considered part of a logical proof.
Your mistaken assumptions are the various paragraphs of the proof don't compare Jesus adequately enough to prove He is God. You assume that the comparing process follows the previous statement as already an accomplished fact even though it was placed in paragraphs to indicate you need to observation the evidence why only Jesus is God. You're assuming something can come from nothing. Whether in another composition or not, nothing is nothing. And claiming the data is not adequate for the exponential progression of conscience, but since you don't observe that data, how can you be so sure?You'll have to clarify what you think I've mistaken, because I see no way to connect your statements. If you can see clearly how I've misinterpreted connected statements as non sequiturs, you're welcome to fill in the parts that connect them.
There may simply be missing information in the argument that you know, and I do not, and you have forgotten to include it, thinking it was implied.
The level of agenda is not specified. It's flexible.Rule 7: Agenda. Taking money from you would necessarily break this rule, as it would hinder the purpose of the forums, which is to bring together 12 informal apostles.
Bookmarks