I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.
You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this.
That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.

The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given......You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition
Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring.
Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.

Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.

Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.
Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.

You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.
There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.

Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.

nature can't cause itself.
I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.

It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction.
Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?

Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.
They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.
Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.

Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.
Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.



It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next.....the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God.

And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time.
Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.

I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?

I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.

The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.

"the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.
No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.

Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.

This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer
I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.

What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.
Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.

I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe did not always exist. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.
Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.

You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
Man has not existed for eternity
Is not clearly less sinful
Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.

More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.

Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.......you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.
I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.