4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[Churchwork]

"proof for resurrection" seems to be a fairly large assumption to me - is the proof stories and testimony - first hand? second hand?

First hand.

Presupposes or assumes, the existence of the evidence, and the idea that it can "lead"

I don't see this as an assumption, because evidence reveals itself, so it is not assumed. These words evidence towards my existence that are typing them.

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused?

Because all physical things have a cause.

yet 13.7 billion years is a long time in which probabilities of occurances though small can happen.

The probability is zero because there has not been enough interatomic interactions to make a single celled living organism.

Why can't objective reality exist without God?

Because it would be subjective relative to each person.

To assume or to state that no possible physical explanation can or will exist – I think cannot be properly made without total and absolute knowledge of all physical objects

What you are doing is you have to be God to know if God existence which is arrogant. All the law requires is a preponderance of evidence.

Belief in God comes before the argument, not following from it.

For me, the evidence keeps me secure, since I don't know hot disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach, nor do you, so that is a good testimony too.

[Adam]

Reply to resurrection proof
I don't regard testimony as proof, and it is easy to conceive why someone like Paul would fabricate a noble lie about it if he truly believed in the value of Christianity's teachings and its continued propagation. Resurrection of Jesus being the most important thing to accept after belief in God by Paul's own account. Considering the people's Jewish context it is even easier to see why resurrection would be claimed for Jesus as the idea for a resurrected prophet was not created, but already existed - and I would say utilized.

Consider these alternatives:
1a. Jesus did not die but recovered/survived or died and his body was stolen.
1b. His resurrection was symbolic rather than physical
2. Paul's testimony is unreliable
3. People were willing to die to propagate belief in resurrection because it is critical to the acceptance of Christianity.

I do share Paul's sentiment about the importance of accepting this belief.

if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

I imagine back in those days bearing such false witness was considered to be punishable by death. Yet Paul considered such a sacrifice to be worthwhile if it could secure for others "hope in Christ" which it did. And so Paul's memory is not left in the dust but preserved and raised up - so to speak

I don't see this as an assumption

My point was statements themselves are the assumptions, the assumption being that words signify something actual - point to real objects - are not simulacra.

as Shakespeare said;

More strange than true: I never may believe
These antique fables, nor these fairy toys.
Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends.
The lunatic, the lover and the poet
Are of imagination all compact:
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold,
That is, the madman: the lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt:
The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
Such tricks hath strong imagination,
That if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear!

gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name - i.e. words creating objects

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused? Because all physical things have a cause.

That's a circular argument - I was questioning that all physical things have a cause - a contention which physicists have now rejected - so I ask on what basis you still hold it to be true?

The probability is zero because there has not been enough interatomic interactions to make a single celled living organism.

Obviously this is incorrect, do you know how many "interatomic interactions" there have been? can such a thing be quantified? I would say the number is vastly greater than the amount of atoms - the number quoted by Ravi.

objective reality exist without God? Because it would be subjective relative to each person

reality is subjective to each person? - that's the meaning of subjective reality.


Having subjective reality does not rule out objective reality - I believe such a belief is called solipsism - look it up it's amusing.

you have to be God to know if God existence - which is arrogant.

ummm.. yes that's my point - arrogant is technically a good way of describing the point of view though it holds negative connotations - I would say assuming there is a God based on supposed logic is merely mistaken and wishful thinking.

All the law requires is a preponderance of evidence.

Yes.

the evidence keeps me secure, since I don't know hot disprove the 4 Step Proof for God

I do, but since you are the arbiter it's up to me to find disproof or flaws you will accept.

[Churchwork]

I don't regard testimony as proof, and it is easy to conceive why someone like Paul would fabricate a noble lie about it if he truly believed in the value of Christianity's teachings and its continued propagation. Resurrection of Jesus being the most important thing to accept after belief in God by Paul's own account. Considering the people's Jewish context it is even easier to see why resurrection would be claimed for Jesus as the idea for a resurrected prophet was not created, but already existed - and I would say utilized.

You'd have to throw out all history and not accept anything of any historical event in humankind, for they are based on testimonies, written accounts and oral traditions. I don't know any historians who would do history that way, for there would be no history to report then and we could glean nothing from the past.

A more reasonable approach is to realize that since people don't die for something they know is a lie, we can be confident Paul and the other eyewitness Apostles truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Therefore, one should investigate this and unless you can come up with a naturalistic explanation, it is therefore, true. This isn't rocket science. You should be able to come up with a viable explanation. So far you haven't been able to, which is a great testimony for the Lord.

Consider these alternatives:
1a. Jesus did not die but recovered/survived or died and his body was stolen.
1b. His resurrection was symbolic rather than physical
2. Paul's testimony is unreliable
3. People were willing to die to propagate belief in resurrection because it is critical to the acceptance of Christianity.

I do share Paul's sentiment about the importance of accepting this belief.

Your theory Jesus did not die has some problems with it. If Jesus didn't die on the cross he presents himself as a liar, for he admitted to the disciples he had died. Furthermore, he could hardly be construed as the risen Lord in such a decrepit state with his back all mangled to the bone, all the water in his chest cavity gone, holes in his hands and his feet. Medical doctors say it is impossible to last on the cross for more than 12 minutes with their legs unsupported. They suffocate to death. The Roman guards would have been put to death if they had let Jesus live. The tomb was empty. The Jews never contested his death. Enemy attestation is powerful. The Romans never contested his death. Nobody in the first century contested his death. They guarded his tomb with two Roman guards. A member of the Jewish Sanhedrin went in and put spices on his dead body. The disciples were distraught their Messiah was dead and had no expectation of his resurrection as they were naive. They weren't parading around proclaiming to people he really wasn't dead but will rise again on Sunday. They never did that. When they were told of his death, and John, Mary and other women witnessed his death, there could be no doubt.

There is never any indication in Scripture his resurrection was symbolic, nor does a symbolic resurrection account for the empty tomb or give us hope.

Of all the writers of the OT, scholars consider Paul's writings the most reliable. And of all Paul's writings they consider 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 the earliest and most reliable. So you will have to take him on his clear words. He admits if Jesus was not raised from the dead physically then Christianity would be a lie. He also says if he is teaching anything that was not originally in the early creed then people could come forward and testify otherwise. None did. He got the creeds from James, Peter and John whom he met soon after the cross.

I imagine back in those days bearing such false witness was considered to be punishable by death. Yet Paul considered such a sacrifice to be worthwhile if it could secure for others "hope in Christ" which it did. And so Paul's memory is not left in the dust but preserved and raised up - so to speak
My point was statements themselves are the assumptions, the assumption being that words signify something actual - point to real objects - are not simulacra.

How can there be any hope of Christ and Paul actually himself believe it if he willingly made up a story he saw Jesus alive from the dead?

When you read the Scriptures with an honest heart, you clearly see over and over again, it was a physically raised body of Jesus which accounts for the empty tomb; but you don't account for the empty tomb, nor show how through the Scriptures they were presenting a symbolic body.

That's a circular argument - I was questioning that all physical things have a cause - a contention which physicists have now rejected - so I ask on what basis you still hold it to be true?

What physicists claim something in nature happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon? We have trillions of observable causes and effects in nature which is a preponderance of evidence. Don't you think claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional? If I had believed that I would admit I was delusional. Can you do the same?

Obviously this is incorrect, do you know how many "interatomic interactions" there have been? can such a thing be quantified? I would say the number is vastly greater than the amount of atoms - the number quoted by Ravi.

Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning.

The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days, pp. 224-25).

Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

reality is subjective to each person? - that's the meaning of subjective reality.

No. If someone says it is alright to do something and another person says it is not, then their opinions are in conflict and they don't settle on an objective reality. But we do know objective reality must exist because people do agree on some things like murder, rape and crime are wrong. Where does this objective reality come from? It doesn't just happen all by itself. It has a cause. There must be a source that is likewise objective and moral. Since nature itself is not moral or immoral, there is a Creator who is objectively moral.

Having subjective reality does not rule out objective reality - I believe such a belief is called solipsism - look it up it's amusing.

Solipsism is extreme ego-centrism. No matter how amusing you may thing it is it is still wrong. It's quite narcissistic. This does not adhere to objective reality but is onto self.

ummm.. yes that's my point - arrogant is technically a good way of describing the point of view though it holds negative connotations - I would say assuming there is a God based on supposed logic is merely mistaken and wishful thinking.

Now you rule out all logic and reasoning to be allowed to know if God exists? So aren't you saying there is nothing you will allow to convince you? That seems closed minded and illogical and contrary to the evidence: 1) trillions of causes and effects, and 2) you can't find any naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data.

I do, but since you are the arbiter it's up to me to find disproof or flaws you will accept.

I am glad you haven't been able to for yourself find any disproof of the proof for God or the Minimal Facts approach proving Jesus is God.

Keep trying if you like like the thousands that have tried before you who all failed, but be honest with yourself after many tries you still can't come up with something that should be relatively simple to disprove for this isn't rocket science. Therefore, realize it is just that same old heart of independency from God that is the source of your problem like Adam and Cain had and which you were born into but you are not a prisoner of, for God does give you the choice. If you want to remain as you are then you will spend an eternity in Hell.

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT1064

Praise the Lord!

[Adam]

people don't die for something they know is a lie, we can be confident Paul and the other eyewitness Apostles truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You state I offer no alternative explanations right before quoting, some that I have.

Your theory Jesus did not die has some problems with it. If Jesus didn't die on the cross he presents himself as a liar, for he admitted to the disciples he had died. Furthermore, he could hardly be construed as the risen Lord in such a decrepit state with his back all mangled to the bone, all the water in his chest cavity gone, holes in his hands and his feet. Medical doctors say it is impossible to last on the cross for more than 12 minutes with their legs unsupported. They suffocate to death. The Roman guards would have been put to death if they had let Jesus live. The tomb was empty. The Jews never contested his death. Enemy attestation is powerful. The Romans never contested his death. Nobody in the first century contested his death. They guarded his tomb with two Roman guards. A member of the Jewish Sanhedrin went in and put spices on his dead body. The disciples were distraught their Messiah was dead and had no expectation of his resurrection as they were naive. They weren't parading around proclaiming to people he really wasn't dead but will rise again on Sunday. They never did that. When they were told of his death, and John, Mary and other women witnessed his death, there could be no doubt. There is never any indication in Scripture his resurrection was symbolic, nor does a symbolic resurrection account for the empty tomb or give us hope.

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.

How can there be any hope of Christ and Paul actually himself believe it if he willingly made up a story he saw Jesus alive from the dead?

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.

claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional? If I had believed that I would admit I was delusional.

Don't you believe that God happens all by himself - like 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.

Would you admit you were delusional?

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

mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

Obviously it isn't impossible - since cells exist

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in 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

must happen by chance--and it can't.

claiming or stating this - no matter how much you want it to be true - does not make it true.

No. If someone says it is alright to do something and another person says it is not, then their opinions are in conflict and they don't settle on an objective reality. But we do know objective reality must exist because people do agree on some things like murder, rape and crime are wrong. Where does this objective reality come from? It doesn't just happen all by itself. It has a cause. There must be a source that is likewise objective and moral. Since nature itself is not moral or immoral, there is a Creator who is objectively moral.

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.

objectively moral.

I believe that is an oxymoron

Since nature itself is not moral or immoral

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.

It has a cause....there is a Creator

Again you have not proven that there is a cause that must be God you simply state it, a lot.

To assume or to state that no possible physical explanation can or will exist – I think cannot be properly made without total and absolute knowledge of all physical objects --(your reply) What you are doing is you have to be God to know if God existence which is arrogant.

you have to be God to know if God existence

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.

So aren't you saying there is nothing you will allow to convince you

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.

contrary to the evidence: 1) trillions of causes and effects, and 2) you can't find any naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data.

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.

trillions of causes and effects

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.

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.

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.

be honest with yourself.... relatively simple to disprove for this isn't rocket science......independency from God ....the choice...

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.
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 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.

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.

Her follows my original thoughts written before first posting my Preface to understand your position better - I still feel they are relevent without modification:

Hi Troy, my name is Adam.

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.
Today, I came across a posting of your purported “4 step proof for God” and your promise of a substantial reward for an acceptable overturning of this proof.

“If you would like to make an attempt to disprove the proof for God, there is a forum where you can do so. $10,000in U.S. dollars (getting cheaper by the day) has been reserved and offered to the first person who can disprove God's proof of Himself. Thousands have tried but failed. Since I am a child of God and thus, set before God with authority in His kingdom and bound for heaven, you can't ask for a better arbitrator.”

As the sole arbitrator, and a true believer I hope you will not be greatly biased against my thoughts and observations. Often when arguments deal with people’s most closely held ideas, the ability and willingness to entertain an opposing point of view is lost. The fact that you have published this proof seems to suggest that you are open to the idea that logic evidence can rule in or out the existence of God. An idea with which I disagree, which classes me as an agnostic.
I would ask you to keep an open mind and consider my thoughts, in the spirit of openness, and if possible entertain for a while my position – agnosticism – and pretend to examine the proof from my perspective – one without God.

PREFACE

What constitutes proof?

I consider proof as having two essential components.
·Correspondence to reality, a definite, demonstrable factual basis
·Logical rigor, conclusions follow deductively from conclusions, no logical fallacies.

If your 4 step proof lacks these two things in any respect you must admit that the “4 Step Proof” is flawed, wrong and hence overturned. That is unless it is actually 4 separate proofs. Perhaps you disagree with what I consider to constitute proof, please advise me of your definition.

In response to my commentary and the flaws found you will be aware that you cannot logically give recourse to arguments from God, or any statement or idea garnered from scriptures since, this proof purports to prove the existence of God. Rebutting in this way would clearly constitute circular reasoning as the existence of God would be implied.

For every system of ideas you will find a basis which requires belief – that is axioms. There is no proof for these axioms – otherwise this proof forms the basic axioms of the system.

In Christianity, there are two fundamental axioms;

·There is a God
·The Bible is inerrant/ mostly inerrant

Without accepting these two axioms, one is not a Christian – all else follows from this basis.
In my previous discussions with Christians I discovered that this basis is untenable – it is not arrived at through reason, or rationalization, but supported by faith– arguments and rationalizations come later. Though rather than the axioms untenability being a weakness of Christianity – it is its greatest strength. Rational argument alone cannot dissuade a person of faith from their beliefs, simply because there was never a rational foundation to question.

I do not claim to provide a disproof for the conclusion that there is a God;

I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement. What I will dispute is the factuality, and logical validity of the overall proof, its premises and mechanisms.

I also want to make it clear – though I admit that I was unable to comprehend all that is written here – if any of these flaws remain inadequately and fallaciously answered, you must in good faith accept that the proof being in part flawed is in its entirety flawed. My exposition however is not a proof but commentary and criticism and is not subject to the above mentioned condition, as it’s observations are separate unto themselves.

STEP 1 – DISALLOWING ETERNITY

“If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had nearly an eternity to be perfected without sin (along the exponential progression of conscience), but since we still sin (more than would be the case), we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects.”

“Why is eternally evolving in the past of cause and effect (do not confuse this with the limitedness of evolution, the physical science, since the amoeba) NOT TRUE, in the physical realm (material nature), biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically; that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity.”

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

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.

Factual premise – Sin is decreasing? What is sin?

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.

The sample size of the violent graph is too small, geographically and temporally to draw these conclusions from it.

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.

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.
Slavery still exists. Some People are stilling willing to have slaves if allowed.

STEP 2 THE UNIVERSE CAN'T CAUSE ITSELF

“Scientists believe nothing in nature-space or time-happens all by itself. It always has a cause. We have trillions of things to substantiate this fact, but nothing to conclusively show otherwise. Therefore, since nature must always have a cause and time can't cause itself, the only possibility that exists we can conclude and fits is the uncreated Created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ. You are welcome to compare Jesus to any figure in history.”

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?

Since I consider Step #1 flawed it follows that this argument is also flawed

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.


“There is always a cause to the effects in nature. Nothing in nature happens all by itself.”

And so as the argument goes the very first “natural effect” had a cause that could not be natural.

“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.

“Not knowing what the cause is doesn't mean the uncreated is not the ultimate first cause.” 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.

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 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.

PART 3 THE BIBLE

“This fact flows from the fact that God created as proven in the first two steps”

“The Bible was written over 1500 years by 40 spiritual men of God.”
– 40 - Prove It. You Can’t.

"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.

“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.

“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.”

No it’s simply because the proof is not perfect – far from it. It fails at being persuasive, encompassing, clear or logical.


“to believe in atheism/agnosticism, yet have no basis or valid reason for doing so. Isn't that called blind faith?”

·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.

·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,

[Churchwork]

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.

[Adam]

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.

reply-I didn't saying objective reality has anything to do with people agreeing about it; rather, objective morality is observed by people agreeing about.

If objective morality is is outside of objective reality in what way is it objective - this is why I called the phrase an oxymoron - it doesn't make sense.

Since it exists how can objective morality come from a universe prior to sentient life not having objective morality?...Everyone agrees ...they....want..[to not be killed by another].. so that is an objective moral.

What exists? - people agreeing about judgements or desires? Development of agreed upon social mores is explainable through evolution as more social animals emerge if that's what you mean , so are desires - such as wanting to stay alive - I'm not sure I understand what your saying - please clarify? Regardless - I don't think moral judgements necessitate a God.

group hallucinations ...are impossible according to modern psychology

I never suggested a "group hallucination" this is a misreading and a misrepresentation of what i have said.

I think the idea .... sounds "Magical" - your reply- Supernatural.

Yes as the word magic means the same thing as supernatural. Supernatural beleifs/concepts including Resurrection, miracles, God.

As you said

claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional? If I had believed that I would admit I was delusional.

But you don't admit that your delusional.

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.

Maybe some, an account of two people meeting is rather innocuous, proof of the supernatural is not.

nature can't can't cause itself

Still my argument against this remains unanswered - your argument only works if you assume nature needs a cause - outside of nature - i.e. not physical - i.e. supernatural.

That is in your proof of the supernatural - you assumed it's existence - your conclusion.

God is not physical

In what meaningful way can you say something not physical exists - to me "not physical" is the same as saying " not existing".

It's impossible Naturalistically and mathematically based on the laws of the universe.

Do you know "the laws of the universe"?

You are the one demanding you would have to be God to know if God exists. That is indeed absurd

Why is it absurd? by "be God" we mean of course being omniscient of the physcial worlds workings - of science and physics.

In order to prove that no physical cause exists for something - i.e. claim a miracle/magic - You would need to know all physical causes that are possible in order to dismiss them.

I think it is more absurd to claim that since all of our current knowledge points to the fact that existing physical entities and even life has "trillions" of physical causes .....

That there must be some non-physical yet somehow mysteriously existing causes. Why? How?

Why? because somethings just can't be physically caused
Why? because you say everything needs a cause?
Why? because you say I'm "stupid", illogical, it's absurd, I'm going to some place called "hell" if I think that there must obviously be something which does not require a cause if we assume there is a beginning - since otherwise that would result in an infinite regress - which suggests an eternity.

So you conclude there must be a non-physical cause - i.e. a cause that does not physically exist.

And you call it God.....the chief property being - that it's not caused

it is illogical to ask for a cause to that which is uncreated

Why? - Because you said - and I should just leave it at that. The end

This is meant to be your perfect argument....

How can you not see the problem with this, or maybe you do.

Something coming into existence all by itself is magic

it appears nothing would convince you, so that seems closed minded.

It's not that nothing will convince me it's that this argument does not convince me.

Do you think it's possible anything I say could convince you, or are you "close minded" in which case - why challenge anyone to argue about the proof at all, which to me implies you are open to doubt- unless it is a trick/ fabrication to draw people in to believe in something which you consider beneficial for them- sort of noble but mistaken - like my explanation for Paul I would say.

This testimony is data

testimony is not physical data - unless you are examining the method of transmission - but you are speaking about the meaning and claim of the testimony. I don't need to present "naturalistic explanations" beyond saying testimony is unreliable and does not constitute prood . I even went so far as to offer you a plausible alternative of what may have happened - which you reject - illogically with this.

people don't die for something they know is a lie

Something I never claimed to be true - I claimed that as a possible alternative Paul died for something else - The promotion of Christianity.

People don't die for something they know is a lie.

They do, if maintaining the lie results in something worth dying for. You cannot prove it was otherwise, or that this alternative is not plausible.

This is my rational "viable explanation" - resurrection is an unproven story. 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.

Assumptions - Paul existed - I accept, I cannot prove it conclusively and absolutely since I am historically remote, but I accept.

1.Paul was killed for his beliefs
2.Paul believed in resurection
3. Therefore Paul was killed for believing in resurrection

1. I'm not debating it
2. You can't prove it
3. see two

But you might say, Paul said he believed in resurrection - well people say a lot of things - If you choose to trust his words that's fine, but trust of testimony is not equivalent to proof.

an uncreated Creator creating intelligence is creating out of Himself and thus, not by magic.

If your "uncreated Creator" is not physical, that is supernatural i.e. magic
isn't anything created from/out of/by magic = magic?

"Magical" - Supernatural.

I know it is true, because you can't find a naturalistic explanation.

Again the fact that we are ignorant of a physical explanation, does not necessitate a supernatural one - just patience, humility and scientific investigation.

you're being illogical the fact that you are still on your way to Hell.

You can stop saying I'm going to Hell - the fact that you think it exists , based on your desire for it to exist alone is highly offensive, as is your seeming revelry in the idea of people, especially me being tortured at length just becuase I disagree with you. I wish no such torture on you - only thatbyou will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
And that you will Go, and do thou likewise.

It's like you have to be God to know if God exists which is pompous.

Pompous and true...

[Churchwork]

If objective morality is is outside of objective reality in what way is it objective - this is why I called the phrase an oxymoron - it doesn't make sense.

Why think objective morality is outside objective morality?

What exists? - people agreeing about judgements or desires? Development of agreed upon social mores is explainable through evolution as more social animals emerge if that's what you mean , so are desires - such as wanting to stay alive - I'm not sure I understand what your saying - please clarify? Regardless - I don't think moral judgements necessitate a God.

I didn't say moral judgments, but actual objective morals could not exist without a Creator.

I never suggested a "group hallucination" this is a misreading and a misrepresentation of what i have said.

Since you didn't specify any possible mistakes at this point, I was just ruling out group hallucinations for you which you agree.

Yes as the word magic means the same thing as supernatural. Supernatural beleifs/concepts including Resurrection, miracles, God.

Magic are mere tricks. The supernatural requires assistance from outside of the natural realm.

But you don't admit that your delusional.

Why would I? I have the evidence on my side and do not go beyond what the evidence supplies.

Maybe some, an account of two people meeting is rather innocuous, proof of the supernatural is not.

God uses the every day to prove His existence which you would expect since what other forum do you have to work with? Address the fact they truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead and went to their deaths for it. You seem unable to account for it with your naturalistic attempts.

Still my argument against this remains unanswered - your argument only works if you assume nature needs a cause - outside of nature - i.e. not physical - i.e. supernatural. That is in your proof of the supernatural - you assumed it's existence - your conclusion.

Preponderance of evidence is what we are working with, not mere assumptions, which shows us, therefore, nature requires a cause, that which is uncreated. You have been unable to overturn the preponderance of cause and effects in nature.

In what meaningful way can you say something not physical exists - to me "not physical" is the same as saying " not existing".

Since the physical can't be the ultimate cause it must be non-physical even outside time itself.

Do you know "the laws of the universe"?

Yes we know many constants and quantities in the universe. These constants if off just a minuscule amount, the universe could not exist. Such fine-tuning requires an intelligent designer.

Why is it absurd? by "be God" we mean of course being omniscient of the physical worlds workings - of science and physics.

It is an unreasonable demand, since it is a proclamation you will accept nothing as evidence for God's existence and it relies on the assumption it is possible to know everything when it is impossible for you to know all things. This is why Hell is created, because you provide no means for God to enter your heart.

In order to prove that no physical cause exists for something - i.e. claim a miracle/magic - You would need to know all physical causes that are possible in order to dismiss them.

All you need to know is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects. We have that now!

I think it is more absurd to claim that since all of our current knowledge points to the fact that existing physical entities and even life has "trillions" of physical causes .....

Therefore, nature always requires a cause and can't come from nothing (Step 2).

That there must be some non-physical yet somehow mysteriously existing causes. Why? How?

Since the physical can't be the cause because it requires a cause and the universe can't always have been existing. The only available possibility is the uncreated must be the cause.

Why? because somethings just can't be physically caused
Why? because you say everything needs a cause?
Why? because you say I'm "stupid", illogical, it's absurd, I'm going to some place called "hell" if I think that there must obviously be something which does not require a cause if we assume there is a beginning - since otherwise that would result in an infinite regress - which suggests an eternity.

The preponderance of evidence tells us nature needs a cause and there can't be an infinite regress because there would be heat death and we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. So the uncreated exists. And the reason you reject Jesus being God even though His resurrection is proven is because your are disobedient and have an independency towards God even hostility. If you want to remain that way which will be decided in this life, then you will be resurrected for Hell to be given your hearts desire to be eternally separated from God.

So you conclude there must be a non-physical cause - i.e. a cause that does not physically exist. And you call it God.....the chief property being - that it's not caused

That's correct.

Why? - Because you said - and I should just leave it at that. The end
This is meant to be your perfect argument....
How can you not see the problem with this, or maybe you do.

Because to look for a cause to that which is uncaused is self-contradictory. The only problem here is one who contradicts himself.

It's not that nothing will convince me it's that this argument does not convince me. Do you think it's possible anything I say could convince you, or are you "close minded"

God said in His word, this is the number one proof of His existence and that nothing is more damning to you. Whether you find it convincing or not, what matters is you can't disprove it. If you could prove something happens all by itself you could disprove the uncreated. Or if you could prove an infinite regress you could also disprove the uncreated. But you could do neither.

testimony is not physical data - unless you are examining the method of transmission - but you are speaking about the meaning and claim of the testimony. I don't need to present "naturalistic explanations" beyond saying testimony is unreliable and does not constitute prood . I even went so far as to offer you a plausible alternative of what may have happened - which you reject - illogically with this.

Your alternative was shown implausible. You have no reason to think the testimony is unreliable and every reason to think it is reliable. There can be no better proof than eyewitness testimony. It seems to me you rule out any allowance for any kind of evidence which shows your mind is closed. Your position is unfalsifiable so therefore, your stance must be wrong.

Something I never claimed to be true - I claimed that as a possible alternative Paul died for something else - The promotion of Christianity.

Christianity would not exist without the eyewitness accounts for the resurrection since that is what Christianity is founded on. You can't separate them. The documentation supports they died for their eyewitness claims. What documentation do you have to show otherwise?

They do, if maintaining the lie results in something worth dying for. You cannot prove it was otherwise, or that this alternative is not plausible.

You don't seem to be able to cite any historical instances of people willingly going to their deaths as martyrs, not recanting what they knew was a lie. Humans don't do that. Humans are self-preserving.

This is my rational "viable explanation" - resurrection is an unproven story. 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.

All known naturalistic explanations or mistakes fail to account for the data surrounding the resurrection, so this is the proof Jesus was resurrected. There is no doubt about this.

Assumptions - Paul existed - I accept, I cannot prove it conclusively and absolutely since I am historically remote, but I accept.

1.Paul was killed for his beliefs
2.Paul believed in resurection
3. Therefore Paul was killed for believing in resurrection

1. I'm not debating it
2. You can't prove it
3. see two

I think the reason there are no skeptical scholars who claim Paul didn't exist because his fingerprint is in so many places in having set up so many churches and had contact with so many people through the Scriptures.

Church fathers state Paul died in 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions. Luke talks about Paul. Paul testifies how he came to see and believe in Christ and the Apostles whom he met. His talks about the resurrection so much, he clearly believes in it. It's as proven as anything in antiquity. Nobody in their right mind based on all the evidence would challenge this fact.

I think it would help you if you read your Bible, because you wouldn't be having issues with this stuff when you see what is so apparently clear.

But you might say, Paul said he believed in resurrection - well people say a lot of things - If you choose to trust his words that's fine, but trust of testimony is not equivalent to proof.

He died for this claim. People don't die for something they know is a lie. That goes against our very human nature to survive.

If your "uncreated Creator" is not physical, that is supernatural i.e. magic isn't anything created from/out of/by magic = magic?

Two senses of magic can be used. One is just simple human tricks. The other is puff the magic dragon the universe popped into existence all by itself. That wouldn't be supernatural because it has no supernatural agent.

Again the fact that we are ignorant of a physical explanation, does not necessitate a supernatural one - just patience, humility and scientific investigation.

If you are holding out for an eternity of the past of physical causes then you are claiming the universe always existed, but that's impossible since we would have experienced heat death and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does due to the exponential progression of conscience (Step 1). Know this fact, patiently waiting for a lie is false humility and ultimately, delusional. Again, God has a place for such people.

You can stop saying I'm going to Hell - the fact that you think it exists , based on your desire for it to exist alone is highly offensive, as is your seeming revelry in the idea of people, especially me being tortured at length just becuase I disagree with you. I wish no such torture on you - only thatbyou will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
And that you will Go, and do thou likewise.

It does give me a certain comfort knowing you will spend an eternity in Hell, just as it would for a woman who was raped knows her attacker is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Hell is proven, because obviously God can't let you be with those who love Him. Since you have to go some place, this proves Hell's existence. You're equating human physical torture to the kind of torture you will spend in eternity. I think that is an inaccurate comparison and naive. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the spiritual realm. One has fire that goes out. The other has fire that never stops burning. It's the fire of judgment of your choice to be eternally separated from your Creator. Nothing could be more asinine! Since you will reject Jesus Christ for eternity, in the same way I would not want to let that rapist out of jail, because he won't change his ways. God is perfectly justified in sending you to Hell and never let you out. You're a bad guy.

Pompous and true...

Any position that is pompous is false. And to claim you have to be God is mindless since obviously you didn't cause your own existence.

[Churchwork]

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jer. 29.13). If you don't search God with all your heart, that explains why you haven't found Him yet. "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, 'even' his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse" (Rom 1.20)

Let's summarize:
1) Can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because there would be heat death, and due to the exponential progression of conscience mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does.
2) Preponderance of evidence of causes shows nature requires a cause, but since nature can't cause itself, the only known possibility is the uncaused must exist.
3) Don't misrepresent God of the Bible for then you would be arguing against something else.
4) There can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects outside the natural for the same reasons given in Step 1, for the same conditions still apply.

[Adam]

You gave me an infraction for formatting whilst I was writing a post and now It's lost : ( If you don't want to talk anymore just say so.

[Adam]

Do not give me infractions to stifle discussions for among other things spelling mistakes, and being discourteous- I am frequently telling you that you will go to Hell?

If our discussion is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. Don't do it through infractions.

1. Don't be a false accuser!For example, accusing people of copying and pasting or plagiarizing on discussion forums as an excuse to avoid the issue is utterly vain and shallow.

3. Show extra care.

4. No doubletalk. Don't contradict yourself.

5. Overassuming.

6. Respond specifically. When discussing with others, respond directly, specifically and courteously,repetitive self-declarations expose the weakness of an argument in trying to deflect and circumvent the issue

7. Stop being antiApostle.

8. Repent before rejoining or posting again

9. No frivolousness

10. Be cordial.

To me the words supernatural and magic are equivalent - or as you would put it the supernatural is "thinly veiled" magic - as both are explanations that claim to be other than physical explanations.

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?

This is a fairly good summary of how this argument is used incorrectly
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
My point again is obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" as evidenced by the fact that cells exist. Or as you might say

since there are trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence....Complex chemistry does arise from natural causes.

I myself do not know the specifics of how, but it's worth learning.

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.

I haven't laid down my chips on a number - and if i did I'd make sure the number was in the game.

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.

The universe doesn't need to "account for itself", you think it couldn't have always existed - because of "heat death" isn't that meant to be a possible end through entropy - what if there was a mechanism by which it was reversed that you're not aware of? the exponential progression of conscience is a silly idea unrelated physics.

you are still on your way to Hell.

As you have seen, I have responded to all your attempts. Each one has failed....the same hostility and independency Adam had at the fall.

Your responses and dismissals have been flawed - just because you dismiss them does not make my observations false.

people strong reason to believe you are going to Hell.

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.

The things i have said have at least as much merit as your pronouncements. I shown you reasons to doubt the proof and resurrection- whether you choose to abide by it is immaterial to the truth.

Yes, you should trust in the written record they believed they saw Jesus resurrected

If it was proof you would not require trust.

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

It requires you to believe in resurrection - which you justify through God.
You supposedly prove eternity - by talking about morals - which you believe exist because of God.

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

can you see the circle reasoning above?

There is nothing to indicate the Scriptures are just a story book, as these were real people with real lives.

Is it not a story, in a book? Paul existed - I agreed
[
QUOTE]
A stolen body doesn't account for the resurrection appearances or the guards protecting the tomb.[/QUOTE]

And your basing this trusting testimony?

There is no known naturalistic law that allows for people to rise from clinical death

Yes there is - it's called CPR : )

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

The data is something other than people supposedly seeing it, or believing it on hearsay?
Good, the resurrection isn't true because it didn't happen - that's the only plausible natural explanation.

What makes you think you would recognize Him if He came?

Well I imagine if you were God you would think of something convincing, a big flying bearded giant with magic tricks, that knows everything - might be a good start for convincing people.

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.

And after your "heat death" there will be zero sins therefore proving your theory. How sinful was the universe when humans didn't exist?

True, humans have not existed for eternity

That graph doesn't seem exponential anymore does it?

Cycles have the attribute of happening out of nothing

What does "progression of conscience" happen out of, what causes it do you think?

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.

Hang on did you just say GOD is in Step 1 of the Proof.....

We don't care about the mechanism

Well obviously if the mechanism is also God, that's a fairly large logical flaw - one I doubt even you could dismiss....don't pretend you don't know why.

Maybe you can think of another way of justifying why the universe isn't eternal - but the Proof would remain flawed.

Preponderance of evidence is overwhelming everything has a cause.

Lots of things have causes, therefore everything has a cause - No.

Is there a preponderance of evidence for resurrection or "an uncreated creator" - No.
What's your evidence that this creator wasn't created "supernaturally" - besides stating it's impossible. - Nothing.

Step 1 it remains flawed. Step 2 remains illogical.

Since no other alternative is even fathomable

I can "fathom" alternatives - you should be able to as well.

humankind across all races and ages worshiped what they called God

No, and even if they did everyone believing something does not make it true. Like Christians believing the earth the center of the universe.

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?

Something else - like the truth? or being honest enough to admit when we don't know everything.

It is not an approach, you can call it arrogant or pompous but you have not once told me why it's untrue, yet you agree it makes proof of God impossible - which makes you an agnostic.

How is that coming to God with an honest heart?

It's not about coming to God - it's just about being honest.

Logic dictates if the natural can't be the cause it must be the supernatural. There are only 2 possibilities: natural or supernatural.

And so one would tend to assume there is a facet of nature that is unknown, or not understood - not outside of all physical things - a ridiculous, meaningless, illogical assumption.

No alternative exists.

There are some alternative explanations even so, our knowledge and objective reality are separate - I think you will agree with this point - so even the absence of an alternative explanation - does not rule out the possibility of one.

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.

Maybe you are going to my version of Hell - I call it irrationality - it makes you a prisoner in your own mind.

"you can't disprove the evidences supplied."

Can, have, and will continue too. I still don't know how you can consider it an impossibilty if you are being reasonable.

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.

One of many lists you can find simply by searching for "biblical contradictions"
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html

How do Christian scholars answer such contradictions?
It may not be a wide difference - but it is a difference - how do you choose which one is right?
Who chooses which books are canonical?

Abiogenesis is proven undoable naturalistically
/mathematically

No, basic chemical "life" has been created in labs.

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.

Only if you're correct, there is no reason to believe you are. so your self aggrandising statements don't bother me.

[QUOTEIndeed the universe eternally exists in the future, but not the past.QUOTE]

Prove it. Actually don't it's irrelevant to our discussion.

The uncreated is proven because nature can't cause itself.

Prove It - You have not, and cannot.

we come to the realization God exists by the proof of nature.

Sure you did.....I believe you.....

But you can't show it is not persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical, and that is why it is persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical.

My ability or inability to communicate does not change what is true - I have shown it is illogical, and so unpersuasive. It also does not encompass proof of the premises assumed - or you would not have required further explanation - you would simply refer back to the proof.

The evidence is given, so you have no excuse for being an atheist or agnostic.... All you have then is Hell.

Your "evidence" isn't evidence - that is my excuse, and quiet a good one.

Your continued insistence that your belief is rational, rather than based on blind faith - the type where you deny it is faith? is aptly explained by yourself

Your faith is certainly blind faith and delusional faith, since it goes contrary to the evidence. Negative or positive, it is still mindless faith.

Atheism denies the possibility of God/s or the supernatural, through reasoned argument.

Agnostics claim that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God/d either way because they are outside the domain logic and the physical world.

See how these words have distinct meanings?

Both are the same in that they do not claim to be able to prove God - which is your claim as what would be called an evidentialist

- as opposed to Fideists - who may be both believers by choice and agnostics.

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.

Am I cold and dead - by your logic? : )

If you don't search God with all your heart

I didn't think this was about me converting to Christianity - but meeting your challenge to find fault with the proof.