The Two Hooks Pulling You Toward Hell

[Churchwork]

The Two Hooks Pulling You Toward Hell (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1)
Shutting Your Mind Down to Two Things

You know what I realized and suppose I have known all along? What I realized is the proof is given nothing in nature happens all by itself, so obviously, the universe can't cause itself, but the atheist shuts his mind down right at this point to avoid confronting the fact there must be an uncreated Creator. I notice I can't get an atheist who is unwilling to seek after the truth to accept what is so obvious or even look at it though some atheists do give into this evidence even though at first it may be hard to stomach because it is so contrary to their fleshly nature.

Thread after thread, post after the post, this remains to be the case with ultimately the atheist shutting his mind down like a zombie for Satan, because to accept the truth of the evidence totally destroys atheism, and that just will not do, because then you are accountable to that Creator who is all-knowing. Instead you can pretend you're ok, remain in lala land, even deny nobody ever does anything wrong so there is no sin, so you can remain in your sin nature without consequence, so you think.

However, some of you atheists will come to the obvious reality that there is an Intelligent Designer, but even Satan knows this. To be saved then is what matters. But who is to save you? What religion is right? You can't save yourself, because you are the cause of the problem-you are sinner. There can only be one ultimate deity because they all contradict each other. Well, there is only one where God enters into His creation, walks among us, and pays the ransom for all sin and that was Jesus Christ. How can we lock this truth with absolute certainty to know Jesus is God? By His resurrection. Almost all skeptical scholars agree the disciples truly believe they saw Jesus resurrected; therefore, if no viable alternative explanation works or fits the known facts, then it must be true Jesus is God by His resurrection, He atones for sins, and gives eternal life. As well, Hell is needed to keep the unsaved away from the saved, like our jail system.

Again, this is where the atheist also shuts his mind down, for though he admits he can't find an alternative explanation to the eyewitness accounts in various group settings, he still shuts his mind down.

The common denominator in both the evidence for the uncreated and the resurrection of Jesus is that the atheist who is unable to counter the evidence for these two findings, has no choice but to shut his mind down. Because he is too selfish to give up self and sin, to reason and be logical, to be righteous and pure. There is lots of unholy pleasure in one's sinful nature, but it is over the long run destructive to one's very being.

That's why the conversation becomes quite dull because the atheist really doesn't care. Of course, it's a free country, and if they don't care to think about it, accepting God's solution to their predicament, this is not going to get them off the hook that is currently pulling them towards Hell.

[Fulgens]

This doesn't sound like a proof to me.

Nothing can create itself, therefore it has to be God? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I'm honestly curious. If it were me, I might be tempted to say something along the lines of "Nothing can create itself, therefore I would assume that the universe has been around forever."

As a college student with vested interests in natural sciences, your overuse of the word "proof" distresses me. Outside of mathematics, I don't really think that it's possible to "prove" something; especially not the way you are going about it.

Also, I think you'll have a hard time finding an atheist who thinks that no one ever does anything wrong. Rather, I think it's that atheists understand that morals aren't something that some book teaches its devout followers but rather morals are values that a society holds and expects its members to follow. They're still morals and it's still the concept of right and wrong; I don't see what religion has to do with it, other than the fact that holy books agree with the more common ones (killing=bad, stealing=bad, etc).

[Churchwork]

Nothing can create itself "in nature". That's what we know. God is not in nature. Since nothing in nature can cause itself, therefore there must be the uncreated. Who is the uncreated? That is what we call God for that is His first characteristic, being uncreated (always existing). This is an established fact and the truth of your mistaken assumption (your first hook). That's even why most nations on the planet have worshiped what they deemed to be their God, because man has written on his heart the inherent knowledge of an uncreated Creator and which is proven in nature.

Your next option is to assume the universe has been around forever so that you can get around the fact that the universe can't cause itself. But again, you are just trying to find some way to reject accountability towards God, for the sake of self. But this is further proven to be false because of the exponential progression of conscience. There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because according to the exponential progression of conscience, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. (In the 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)this is Step 1.) This is fact number two that exposes your additional mistaken assumption (your second hook).

These two hooks you use whenever you need to reject God, but they are proven false here and now, so you have no excuse.

This is not an overuse, but God's very exacting proof of Himself. He says observe nature to prove His existence. I am simply reiterating the fact of the matter. No matter how much it is used, it is always the proof. This is mathematically solid. There are trillions of things with causes and nothing to be show without a cause, so mathematically the odds are so astronomically against you, it would take great arrogance and pride in one's self to shut one's mind down and think either the universe could happen all by itself or always existed. Such are man's ideas to reject reality.

Whether you think morals are in some book or held in society as a whole, there are still sins (and the law written upon our hearts), when you violate those morals, so to violate those morals is a sin. You can't get around the fact that sin exists to deny the exponential progression of conscience. Sin exists, that's why you can find dictionary definitions of sin that make no mention of some book.

I am not sure what you mean by religion or how that applies to the opening post. If you are hostile to the religion of the fact that you are sinner and sin leads to death and the second death which is hell, and you need a Savior to atone for your sins, then your anti-religious stance is without basis because Jesus is proven to be God by His resurrection (and He said this would be the best proof for Him being God), for which you would be unable to explain it away naturalistically and reasonably. There are 8 important pieces of evidence (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5503#post5503) for the resurrection.

In terms of logical positivism, if you can only accept what you can see, then you see naturalistically no plausible explanation fits the data; therefore, you ought to accept the Lord Jesus as your Savior, otherwise you are going to Hell.

[Fulgens]

Nothing can create itself "in nature". That's what we know. God is not in nature. Since nothing in nature can cause itself, therefore there must be the uncreated. Who is the uncreated? That is what we call God for that is His first characteristic, being uncreated (always existing). This is an established fact and the truth of your mistaken assumption (your first hook). That's even why most nations on the planet have worshiped what they deemed to be their God, because man has written on his heart the inherent knowledge of an uncreated Creator and which is proven in nature.
But you just repeated what you said the first time there. What I'm saying is that this "uncreated" you speak of could just be the universe. I find this postulate easier to believe than an invisible man who just decided to create everything. If the universe has been around forever, it didn't need to be created.


Your next option is to assume the universe has been around forever so that you can get around the fact that the universe can't cause itself. But again, you are just trying to find some way to reject accountability towards God, for the sake of self. But this is further proven to be false because of the exponential progression of conscience. There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because according to the exponential progression of conscience, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. (In the 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)this is Step 1.) This is fact number two that exposes your additional mistaken assumption (your second hook).

What even is the exponential progression of conscience? You quote it a lot, but from how you explain it, I can't make heads or tails of this. You define this "exponential progression of conscience" by using the term in the definition, which explains nothing. If you have a link to something that defines it correctly, please let me know; seems like it would be an interesting read.

These two hooks you use whenever you need to reject God, but they are proven false here and now, so you have no excuse.
This is what I'm talking about. You haven't proven anything. You can't. Scientifically, the best you can do is "show" something using evidence. And I must say, the evidence you're using is pretty weak. You're saying,


Nothing can cause itself, so it must have been God (which is horribly broken logic)
The exponential progression of conscience says that due to the exponential progression of conscience... etc. (you're using a recursive definition here)

This is not an overuse, but God's very exacting proof of Himself. He says observe nature to prove His existence. I am simply reiterating the fact of the matter. No matter how much it is used, it is always the proof. This is mathematically solid. There are trillions of things with causes and nothing to be show without a cause, so mathematically the odds are so astronomically against you, it would take great arrogance and pride in one's self to shut one's mind down and think either the universe could happen all by itself or always existed. Such are man's ideas to reject reality.
Ah! Now we're into territory where proofs actually DO exist: mathematics. However, this is still not a proof. This is another case of God in the gaps, as much as I hate to use the phrase. You're saying that there are many things that scientifically we don't understand. That's a true statement, and I support it wholeheartedly. Relatively speaking, the Human race knows very little.

But that's not any sort of evidence for God. As much as you can use this assertion to argue for God, some other guy can use it to argue for an invisible flying spaghetti monster, and I'd consider both on the same level of believability.



Whether you think morals are in some book or held in society as a whole, there are still sins (and the law written upon our hearts), when you violate those morals, so to violate those morals is a sin. You can't get around the fact that sin exists to deny the exponential progression of conscience. Sin exists, that's why you can find dictionary definitions of sin that make no mention of some book.
Well, I looked up "sin," and the definition was "Transgression of divine law." In Christianity, divine law is the bible. Sin, as I see it, is pretty much an invention by Christianity (and others).

I'm not arguing that a version of sin exists. However, I'm reluctant to call it "sin" because the word has connotations of religiosity. And I don't want to say that I believe in it. Instead, I believe that morals exist. The concept of right and wrong, which has been burned into our heads by society for thousands of years, exists in a big way. I just think it's disingenuous to call it "sin" and say that it's a product of the bible when it's really not--it's a product of society.



I am not sure what you mean by religion or how that applies to the opening post. If you are hostile to the religion of the fact that you are sinner and sin leads to death and the second death which is hell, and you need a Savior to atone for your sins, then your anti-religious stance is without basis because Jesus is proven to be God by His resurrection (and He said this would be the best proof for Him being God), for which you would be unable to explain it away naturalistically and reasonably. There are 8 important pieces of evidence (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5503#post5503) for the resurrection.

I'm certainly not hostile to the idea of religion. To the contrary, actually: I find it fascinating.

As for the resurrection being proven, that's nonsense. The only thing you have to go on is eyewitness accounts. That is in no way evidence at all. In fact, it wouldn't even be accepted into a court of law in today's time. Hearsay.


In terms of logical positivism, if you can only accept what you can see, then you see naturalistically no plausible explanation fits the data; therefore, you ought to accept the Lord Jesus as your Savior, otherwise you are going to Hell.

That's just it though. I do only accept what I can see. And even though I see many things for which we do not have an explanation, I think it would be a better idea to simply leave those as unknowns. Until somehow, someone manages to show that God exists without using 2000-year-old eyewitness accounts or faulty logic games, I don't see why the idea of God is any more plausible than the idea of Allah, or Vishnu, or the Pantheon. Or nothing.

[Churchwork]

But you just repeated what you said the first time there. What I'm saying is that this "uncreated" you speak of could just be the universe. I find this postulate easier to believe than an invisible man who just decided to create everything. If the universe has been around forever, it didn't need to be created.
Of course, because it the ultimate proof for God placing the burden on you to show otherwise, but not by misrepresenting God of the Bible. God never claimed to be an invisible man, but is spirit outside the universe. This always existing spirit or being decided to create out of His own prerogative. Surely we can't dictate to God when or even if He should create. If you no longer try to argue that the universe could just start up all by itself, well then you are making progress, so naturally you will try to argue the universe always existed, but this was already proven impossible also due to the exponential progression of conscience. Wouldn't it be simpler to have an intelligent designer that is making sure everything is within His firm grip, that nothing gets out of hand, than a never ending unexplainable eternity of the past of cause and effects without purpose or meaning for its being?


What even is the exponential progression of conscience? You quote it a lot, but from how you explain it, I can't make heads or tails of this. You define this "exponential progression of conscience" by using the term in the definition, which explains nothing. If you have a link to something that defines it correctly, please let me know; seems like it would be an interesting read.
It was already explained: "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because according to the exponential progression of conscience, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does." If you want read more about it, read here (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) and see the graphic. What's so hard to understand about the fact that we observe in nature the exponential progression of conscience and as all exponential progressions go they approach nearness to something? That something is sinlessness. Others have put forward a similar argument, not about sinlessness but heat death. The universe would not be as big as it is and would have long since dissipated if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects.



This is what I'm talking about. You haven't proven anything. You can't. Scientifically, the best you can do is "show" something using evidence. And I must say, the evidence you're using is pretty weak. You're saying,


Nothing can cause itself, so it must have been God (which is horribly broken logic)
The exponential progression of conscience says that due to the exponential progression of conscience... etc. (you're using a recursive definition here)

That's exactly what has been done, to have shown something using the evidence. You can't ask for more than that. There is no stronger evidence than trillions of things having a cause in nature and nothing to be shown without a cause. That's like you playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one and arrogantly thinking you could still win. You're delusional. Surely you will lose.

We don't say because nothing in nature can cause itself that it must be God. Not at all. What a reasonable person says is there must be the uncaused cause, because no other possibility exists. Then we look to see who has this attribute. God of the Bible does. Other religions do. Deism does. Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But which one is right? God of the Bible by proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, uniquely, for no other person on earth claimed to be the uncreated Creator. And these other faiths internally prove themselves to be wrong and by comparing theirs to the attributes of God of the Bible. Usually, your arguments are from your own misunderstanding of the position of the Christian so you deny the Christ because of some mistaken assumption on your part.

I don't see a recursive problem, nor did you show any. If you want to postulate an eternity of the past of cause and effects (which itself is a recursive problem because it is without meaning or purpose), I am in my full rights to examine the validity of it. And based on the evidence we observe of an exponential progression of conscience, it does destroys your hypothesis, because your theory and the evidence can't both be true at the same time. Not only do you have no evidence or reason to believe in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you have nothing to counter the fact of the exponential progression of conscience and no heat death.



Ah! Now we're into territory where proofs actually DO exist: mathematics. However, this is still not a proof. This is another case of God in the gaps, as much as I hate to use the phrase. You're saying that there are many things that scientifically we don't understand. That's a true statement, and I support it wholeheartedly. Relatively speaking, the Human race knows very little.

But that's not any sort of evidence for God. As much as you can use this assertion to argue for God, some other guy can use it to argue for an invisible flying spaghetti monster, and I'd consider both on the same level of believability.

When did these proofs never not exist? History is a proof. Math can be used as a proof. The law of cause and effect which is unchallenged can be used as a proof. There are various kinds of proofs. Math is not the sole arbiter of proving. Don't narrow yourself like that. Life is much bigger than that.

God of the gaps is not a valid argument to argue against God and the proof for God, because to always use this argument leads to the inevitable necessity that you must be God because without you being God then there will always be a gap, that is to say, something you don't know as an excuse to reject God. Don't you see how arrogant and pretentious this is? In other words, you have set yourself up saying there is no proof you will ever accept of God, so there is no way God can prove Himself to you. That is why you are going to Hell. In Molinism (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2750), an advanced explanation of osas arminian, which reconciles God's infinite foreknowledge with free will, under all world ensembles, in no circumstance will some people ever accept God and salvation through His only begotten Son; therefore, you really belong in Hell, you send yourself there, and even have a foretaste of it now.

But not only this, you have a double standard, because nonetheless there is this past, and you therefore, have a universe of gaps. Why have a doublestandard, because you are not being honest with yourself then? The gaps approach is not used for either the universe or God, because it is a fallacious argument at the outset. We ought to just go with where the evidence leads us. Wherever the preponderance of evidence exists, we have to be mature enough and willing enough to go there, no matter how much it goes against our biases and predispositions.

Hence, since nature can't cause itself, there must exist the uncreated creator. You are more than welcome to compare God of the Bible to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or of any other religion, and as you do you will easily see the qualities of it fail and pale in comparison to God of the Bible. Comparing every claim of an uncreated Creator, God of the Bible trumps all, and there is no greater love than by what Jesus did for you on the cross taking all your sins upon Himself. You can either accept it or not. God gives you the choice. It helps to know you are sinner. The law was given to point to the fact you are sinner in need of salvation, because nobody could keep the law.



Well, I looked up "sin," and the definition was "Transgression of divine law." In Christianity, divine law is the bible. Sin, as I see it, is pretty much an invention by Christianity (and others).

I'm not arguing that a version of sin exists. However, I'm reluctant to call it "sin" because the word has connotations of religiosity. And I don't want to say that I believe in it. Instead, I believe that morals exist. The concept of right and wrong, which has been burned into our heads by society for thousands of years, exists in a big way. I just think it's disingenuous to call it "sin" and say that it's a product of the bible when it's really not--it's a product of society.

Yes, there are definitions in the dictionary for an association to divine law, but there are also definitions with no mention of divine law or sin in relation to keeping God's commandments. If sin is an invention, then there would be no need for jails, for people go to jail for their sins. Not all sins, but certainly some sins. The reason why the Old Testament is much bigger than the New Testament is because constantly it is trying to show you that you are a sinner whether a Jew or a Gentile. You know in your own experience you sometimes say things you shouldn't have said, spoking in an unloving manner, were selfish, regretful for something you did. This is the common human experience. To deny it is to deny you are human being capable of making mistakes, mistakes that would not have occurred if you were without sin and had no sin nature and were not born into sin.

I don't know what you mean by religiosity. This word is thrown around and misused so much, I have to ask you what you mean by it, but whether religion or no religion, sin exists. It is undeniable. Sin is not "morals," sin is immorals. A sin is something wrong, an acquiescence to temptation. Whether it has been burned into your head or not, you admit there are things that are wrong. This is what we mean by sin. Whether you like the word or not is irrelevant, it is the definition that is being used to prove God exists.

I am not using the definition of sin that is a product of the Bible, but what is agreed upon by society that there are some things that are just plain wrong. Later on I want you discover if God of the Bible is the one who has objective moral values against sin in society. You are being dishonest and disingenuous because you are arguing for something I have not contended for in giving the proof for God. I am so ready to give you an infraction if you make this same mistake again. That's a friendly warning. Responding to your repeating your mistakes is not a road I care to travel and waste my time with. Infractions help me, as well, to let you know this.


I'm certainly not hostile to the idea of religion. To the contrary, actually: I find it fascinating.

As for the resurrection being proven, that's nonsense. The only thing you have to go on is eyewitness accounts. That is in no way evidence at all. In fact, it wouldn't even be accepted into a court of law in today's time. Hearsay.

I am glad you have no problem with religion, but your issue is really with religiosity-say outward sacraments and inordinate rules, etc.

There is no better evidence than eyewitness accounts in multiple group attestations. Why deny the best proof of all? In a court of law it would be accepted to. For example the lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won 245 cases in a row said this is the best case he has ever seen. In other words, by apply all circumstantial, historical and other kinds (there are many kinds) of evidences, it meets all the necessary criteria that would win a case in court. But the most important is of course the eyewitnesses, so how do you explain it away? In modern psychology group hallucinations are impossible, so that is not a route you can take.

You ought to look into the evidences for the resurrection. I highly recommend you buy Lee' Strobel's, (1) The Case for Faith, (2) The Case for Christ, (3) The Case for the Real Jesus, and (4) The Case for a Creator and read them in that order.

I can tell your condition by just talking to and know what the minimum standard for you is to meet your own conscience if you are ever to be born-again. You must stop doing what you always do or you will continue to get what you always got. You must put aside all commentary, order these 4 books, read them as intently as you have ever read anything, reserve judgment, read very carefully hanging on every word, take in the information, then make a decision after you have finished reading all 4 books.

There is only one reason you have not found God yet. "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) -- i.e., observing the undeniable law of cause and effect in nature, what it reveals, and the exponential progression of conscience.

Here is another lawyer who easily wins the court case (http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/index.html).


That's just it though. I do only accept what I can see. And even though I see many things for which we do not have an explanation, I think it would be a better idea to simply leave those as unknowns. Until somehow, someone manages to show that God exists without using 2000-year-old eyewitness accounts or faulty logic games, I don't see why the idea of God is any more plausible than the idea of Allah, or Vishnu, or the Pantheon. Or nothing.
Once the evidence becomes such a preponderance, you should go with it and it says there are trillions of things in nature with a cause. To show you how absurd you are being, imagine if we figured out all causes, but there was just one last tiny little thing we were not sure about. Would that be justification to reject God? Of course not. You need to really be honest with yourself here. If God exists, He is not going to make Himself so unreachable. He is personal.

God is proven on two accounts: (1) uncreated must exist, (2) by the resurrection of Jesus.

Since there can only be one uncreated creator, you can't have a pantheon, otherwise you have to ask where do these others come from? You know Allah is not God because you can't come along six centuries late and say Jesus didn't die on the cross without anything support your claim. He is a liar. Vishnu is not even said to be the uncreated creator in Hinduism. Brahma is. How can that which is not uncreated be bigger than the uncreated?

All your thoughts are plagued with assumptions and logical incoherency as well as infused with the petty self. You need to be delivered not only from the "good self" but also the petty self. Your good self is self-righteousness in your own image and actually doing good things which are done at the same time while sinning the greatest sin of all rejecting God and God's only available means to save you from yourself.

His purpose for creating is fellowship with man made in His image. Out of His glory He can't help but create this glorious universe. But in order to have this genuine fellowship for eternity, He has to give you genuine choice. And the way He does this is to provide enough evidence to believe in Him and His ways, but also to make Himself obscure enough that you can reject Him if you so will to do so. Presently we are in that part of His design called the Redemptive Design in which man has fallen, tempted by Satan, and His redemptive work is working towards sinlessness for the New City, where Heaven and Earth come together. And Hell is for those who don't want it.

There you have it.

[Fulgens]

It was already explained: "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because according to the exponential progression of conscience, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does." If you want read more about it, read here (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) and see the graphic. What's so hard to understand about the fact that we observe in nature the exponential progression of conscience and as all exponential progressions go they approach nearness to something? That something is sinlessness. Others have put forward a similar argument, not about sinlessness but heat death. The universe would not be as big as it is and would have long since dissipated if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects.
You seem to bank a lot on this point, so there's not much I can say here other than it this idea of "exponential progression of conscience" makes no sense. I've lived for 22 years. Whether or not there has been an "eternity of past causes and effects," 22 years is how long I have been alive. I don't know long you have been alive, but I'll guess it's somewhere below the very generous upper bound of 100 years. With free will, what does an eternity of the past have to do with the decisions you make or the sins you commit? I feel like I must be misunderstanding something because every time you bring it up I can't even begin to imagine how this makes even a modicum of sense.

When did these proofs never not exist? History is a proof. Math can be used as a proof. The law of cause and effect which is unchallenged can be used as a proof. There are various kinds of proofs. Math is not the sole arbiter of proving. Don't narrow yourself like that. Life is much bigger than that.
That's the thing though. In mathematics, we can write "proofs." Literal proofs. We can write down a series of equations and show something completely unequivocally. Contrast that to anything else. History, for example. We have been taught that Napolean Bonaparte was born on August 15, 1769. Prove it. Well, we have plenty of evidence for this: memoirs, records, biographies, etc. But can this simple fact ever be empirically proved? No. As likely as it is that this information is correct, there could still be error because all of these pieces of evidence have been in the hands of humans and there's always the possibility (I'd say probability, really) of human error or a multitude of other factors.

Apply this to the bible. As many pieces of evidence as you can amass, there is absolutely no way to "prove" something outside of the cut-and-dry world of mathematics. The best you can do is "show" something. There's a reason why the scientific community uses the word "theory" so much.

God of the gaps is not a valid argument to argue against God and the proof for God, because to always use this argument leads to the inevitable necessity that you must be God because without you being God then there will always be a gap, that is to say, something you don't know as an excuse to reject God. Don't you see how arrogant and pretentious this is? In other words, you have set yourself up saying there is no proof you will ever accept of God, so there is no way God can prove Himself to you.
It seems like you're arguing for agnosticism. I could turn this around in an instant and say that even though there are gaps, there's not enough evidence to say that these gaps are God. There's not enough evidence to say these gaps are anything, really. But it's disingenuous to see these gaps and without acknowledging the idea that they're called gaps for a reason (that reason being we have no idea what these gaps really consist of). I'm not using these gaps to say that God doesn't exist. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that your argument in this regard isn't an argument for the existence for God. It's an argument that you can't say God doesn't exist so long as we don't have every single thing in the universe explained, which we likely never will, especially in our lifetimes. This, I absolutely agree with. There's no way to be certain either way.

I don't know what you mean by religiosity. This word is thrown around and misused so much, I have to ask you what you mean by it, but whether religion or no religion, sin exists. It is undeniable. Sin is not "morals," sin is immorals. A sin is something wrong, an acquiescence to temptation. Whether it has been burned into your head or not, you admit there are things that are wrong. This is what we mean by sin. Whether you like the word or not is irrelevant, it is the definition that is being used to prove God exists.

I am not using the definition of sin that is a product of the Bible, but what is agreed upon by society that there are some things that are just plain wrong. Later on I want you discover if God of the Bible is the one who has objective moral values against sin in society. You are being dishonest and disingenuous because you are arguing for something I have not contended for in giving the proof for God. I am so ready to give you an infraction if you make this same mistake again. That's a friendly warning. Responding to your repeating your mistakes is not a road I care to travel and waste my time with. Infractions help me, as well, to let you know this.
That's fine. We're in agreement here anyway. It's really a matter of semantics. I've spoken to so many people who use the "morals wouldn't exist if not for the bible" argument that I guess I assume everyone uses that argument.

By religiosity I simply meant that the connotations of the word "sin" are religious in nature; I doubt you'd be able to find someone who disagrees with that. But it seems that we are in agreement that sin = immoral behavior and nothing else.

Again, I don't really have any problem with people practicing whatever faith they like. I've spoken to many different people from many different backgrounds and religious leanings and if I've learned one thing it's that people absolutely will not compromise on the subject of their faith. I'm not trying to challenge anything or convert anyone. Instead, I'm simply trying to explain, in a logical manner, why most of this, on the whole, is very unscientific, and it's pretty unfair to use language like "proof" for something which is at best pseudoscience.

[Churchwork]

You seem to bank a lot on this point, so there's not much I can say here other than it this idea of "exponential progression of conscience" makes no sense. I've lived for 22 years. Whether or not there has been an "eternity of past causes and effects," 22 years is how long I have been alive. I don't know long you have been alive, but I'll guess it's somewhere below the very generous upper bound of 100 years. With free will, what does an eternity of the past have to do with the decisions you make or the sins you commit? I feel like I must be misunderstanding something because every time you bring it up I can't even begin to imagine how this makes even a modicum of sense.
Look. If God says the number one proof of Himself is what we observe in nature, then we should consider it. You have just resorted to the fallacy of too small a sampling error. We have several millennia to work with in observing the human condition and you are focused on just you? The fact remains as evidence we observe an exponential progression of conscience these past millennia. Hence, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. You are not giving me any clues to where you are confused other than your sampling error is too small. Similarly, the universe would experience far more heat death than it does. Are you lacking in examples for an exponential progression of conscience? The obvious one is human sacrifices that were so prevalent among the nations has virtually ceased. Remember, this is one of the two hooks that is sending you to Hell, because you shut your mind down to this obvious fact.



That's the thing though. In mathematics, we can write "proofs." Literal proofs. We can write down a series of equations and show something completely unequivocally. Contrast that to anything else. History, for example. We have been taught that Napolean Bonaparte was born on August 15, 1769. Prove it. Well, we have plenty of evidence for this: memoirs, records, biographies, etc. But can this simple fact ever be empirically proved? No. As likely as it is that this information is correct, there could still be error because all of these pieces of evidence have been in the hands of humans and there's always the possibility (I'd say probability, really) of human error or a multitude of other factors.

Apply this to the bible. As many pieces of evidence as you can amass, there is absolutely no way to "prove" something outside of the cut-and-dry world of mathematics. The best you can do is "show" something. There's a reason why the scientific community uses the word "theory" so much.

In a way this is a math proof for when he was born, because the number of credible sources validates it. That number is greater than opposing numbers. Historians don't do historical math the way you do. When the preponderance of evidence is in, we go with that, unless shown otherwise. You can't keep shutting your mind down to every little thing. And so it is with the Bible like any historical document. Where the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, nothing is more well documented in antiquity and with sources still preserved in their original papyrus nearest to the events that took place. You can not merely just show Jesus is God, but prove it unequivocally, because even you admit there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness claims for the resurrection appearances of Christ Jesus. There are other things in history you can have absolute conviction to believe in. For example, WWII definitely happened.

There are other proofs too besides eyewitness evidence of appearances and documentary evidence. There is corroborating evidence. Scientific evidence takes the form of no naturalistic theory can account for the data of the resurrection. There is rebuttal evidence, identity evidence, psychological evidence, profile evidence, fingerprint evidence (not actual fingers), medical evidence, evidence for the missing body and circumstantial evidence. (The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel.)


It seems like you're arguing for agnosticism. I could turn this around in an instant and say that even though there are gaps, there's not enough evidence to say that these gaps are God. There's not enough evidence to say these gaps are anything, really. But it's disingenuous to see these gaps and without acknowledging the idea that they're called gaps for a reason (that reason being we have no idea what these gaps really consist of). I'm not using these gaps to say that God doesn't exist. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that your argument in this regard isn't an argument for the existence for God. It's an argument that you can't say God doesn't exist so long as we don't have every single thing in the universe explained, which we likely never will, especially in our lifetimes. This, I absolutely agree with. There's no way to be certain either way.
How does it seem agnostic to believe the overwhelming evidences in nature prove God's existence? And that you can't use your gaps theory to deny God's existence?

We are not saying a gap in nature is God, for God is not in nature, but that there are causes always in nature and some not known yet, because of the overwhelming evidence for causes in nature and no proof for something being without a cause in nature. We know about these gaps in nature for certain is that they are the causes in nature because the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. You are the one who brought up gaps, so aren't you contradicting yourself saying, "I'm not using these gaps to say that God doesn't exist"? Since I don't use your gaps as an argument for God's existence, why bring it up when you said, "I'm merely pointing out that your argument in this regard isn't an argument for the existence for God"? I think you assumed again falsely something that Christians don't believe to form your arguments.

Rather, the argument is that you can't say God does not exist on any alleged gaps, so you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. In fact, you agree, for you said, "you can't say God doesn't exist". Therefore, you have no grounds for atheism. By having brought it up in the first place, you were actually accusing atheism as well, because these things nonetheless happen. This shows your double standard.

God is not proven by gaps, but by the preponderance of evidence in nature for cause so the universe can't cause itself, nor can it always have been existing, due to the exponential progression of conscience.


That's fine. We're in agreement here anyway. It's really a matter of semantics. I've spoken to so many people who use the "morals wouldn't exist if not for the bible" argument that I guess I assume everyone uses that argument.

By religiosity I simply meant that the connotations of the word "sin" are religious in nature; I doubt you'd be able to find someone who disagrees with that. But it seems that we are in agreement that sin = immoral behavior and nothing else.

Again, I don't really have any problem with people practicing whatever faith they like. I've spoken to many different people from many different backgrounds and religious leanings and if I've learned one thing it's that people absolutely will not compromise on the subject of their faith. I'm not trying to challenge anything or convert anyone. Instead, I'm simply trying to explain, in a logical manner, why most of this, on the whole, is very unscientific, and it's pretty unfair to use language like "proof" for something which is at best pseudoscience.
What they are doing is stating a fact, nonetheless, because the Word of God is Jesus and He created us, not as a proof but as a statement of fact, because it reasonably follows. We are using the dictionary definition without a specific religious connotation, and this shouldn't be an issue anyway for you, since you don't have a problem with religion per se. Try to not get off course, but just deal with the proof as is. So in the future don't try to argue sin does not exist to try to argue against the exponential progression of conscience. Just as you don't compromise your faith even contrary to the evidence of the two hooks, so do others in other religions.

Since science clearly tells us there are trillions of things in nature with causes and the exponential progression of conscience is an undeniable fact scientifically observed in nature, then aren't you trying to employ pseudoscience to try to argue against the scientific proof for God? How are you being fair or logical by doing that?

Christians aren't liberal like you to say all religions ok as long as they don't hurt anyone, for they all contradict each other. In that way, you are again being illogical. If you had a conscience quickened with God's life, you would take issue with such false teachings. But you are what we might call a dullard, shutting your mind down to these glaring contradictions. Do you see you're problem? Not just with there being no evidence for atheism or other religions (there are valid arguments against them), but you have no evidence against the proofs for the uncreated Creator and Jesus being God.