Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

[Parture]

Re: 1dave1 @ atheist.net


What is your source for how the disciples died?
Some verses in the Bible and some extra-Biblical sources.


And how do we know none of them changed their mind?Because there is no record they changed their minds and they died for it.


It seems unlikely that if one of them denied that he had seen Jesus risen that this would be preserved in writing.It seems likely that if one or more said that they had never seen Jesus alive from the dead then they would have said so since Paul even said that most were still alive to do so that he included in his list of eyewitnesses. And since they all died as martyrs for this testimony of seeing Jesus alive from the dead that doesn't mesh well with claiming they didn't see Him.


Your right a quick web search failed to find a case. But of course if someone went to their death proclaiming the lie it would be hard to determine that they knew it was a lie.
Anyway you have all of history to find one person who willingly died for a lie. You can't even find one.


But does Peter ever say he was in a group who all saw risen Jesus. Does John?In their accounts, yes by their words these are groups just as given by Paul and and the Gospels and Acts. Never anything to contrary.


What I mean here, is there any quote where someone is recounting a specific incident where he was with a group who all saw risen Jesus?Yes, John and Peter in their epistles. Matthew in his gospel and John in his gospel. Even Paul when he saw Jesus testifies those with him heard the voice, saw the light and also fell to the ground with Him, and saw the man, but only Paul could understand what Jesus was saying. The Gospels were oral accounts preserved. There was not a contrary message to this in the beginning in the primary sources.


But would any record of this be preserved?As was said before, Paul said if there was a contrary message to what was being taught from the beginning, someone would have come forth.


We have very few records from the time. The early christians would be unlikely to preserve such records. And there were hundreds of years when such records would have been considered heresy and would have been destroyed.Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. In fact, take any ten figures and Jesus has more sources written about Him within 150 years of the person's death. The early Christians are very likely to preserve this record. It's something you would want put to papyri right away so all the books of the NT were written before 65 AD except for Revelation which was written about 95 AD. Since all but 11 verses can be quoted from the early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd century if someone burned something centuries later that's irrelevant.


Are you sure you aren't making the common atheist fallacy here?Do you mean the fallacy of believing something with no evidence? No, since I gave you the evidence and you have nothing to counter it.


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Right?Right. But such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence as we have seen is evidence.


See above. How do we really know that many people didnt come forth to say otherwise?I saw above. Didn't see anything to help you. We can only go with evidence. If you want to suggest someone came forth to say otherwise, then you need some evidence. What we do have is many points of corroboration the disciples believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Christians like evidence so we will stick with the evidence and let you stir.


But can you provide a quote where James is saying he was with a group who all saw risen Jesus?Why is this required? The twelve groups listed didn't include James and that's alright since James was not an original Apostles. Whether James was included in the 500 or not makes no difference. He was converted as a result of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.


(this to establish that a group saw Jesus, and because it was a group all seeing the same thing, it could not have been an hallucination)That's correct group hallucinations are impossible. And of those instances where there were individuals alone seeing Jesus physically in person, it's unlikely all would be hallucinations anyhow.


And now part 2 of your proof requires that the diciples went to their death rather than deny having seen risen Jesus.That's correct, that's the evidence we have from both the New Testament, extra-Biblical and non-Christian sources.


What is your source for the manner of their deaths?The church fathers and the Bible and non-Christian sources. All this information is common knowledge. Just read their writings. We have a total of 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' death.


Do you have any source that claims to be an eyewitness to their deaths?Starting with John who placed himself at the cross when Jesus died. I don't know of any sources of eyewitnesses of their deaths but some must have been present because, for example, Stephen's entire testimony was recounted. Though in most instance, it wouldn't make much sense for those Apostles to be present who would be the only to write about it, since they would be grabbed from the crowd and accosted.

[Parture]

You could be right: we could have happened before, but we have no way of knowing it now. Besides, for all we know, time has not existed indefinitely, so your argument fails no matter how you look at it.
You would not have happened twice, but you would have happened already because you would have had an eternity to do so. This is how you know infinite regress is impossible. If time didn't always exist then it needs a cause outside of itself. So no matter how you look at it your argument fails.


You still have not explained how your god can create anything without time. Being "outside time" is not an explanation, it is a dodge that does not work. Besides, if your god can be outside time, so can the universe itself. Perhaps you should become a pantheist?We can't know everything. It is unreasonable to demand to know everything to know if God exists. It is enough to accept the evidence since nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed then nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And this is whom we call God. "Outside of time" is the explanation since obviously time did not always exist. It needs a cause. Don't doge this. If you want the universe to exist outside of time yet you require time for something to come into being then according to you we would never have existed. If you want some timeless singularity to start the universe up you still fail because, because a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser can never produce the greater. Pantheism is false since God is outside of time and space. And God can't have morals below our own, so He has a conscience and morality. Nature by itself doesn't have that.


Judging from the sources we have, the resurrection most likely did not happen, so Jesus' claim is just self-delusion.Historians don't use your sources since they are too late and irrelevant. They concern themselves with the primary sources. Of the 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' death none of them suggest otherwise about the the disciples' belief they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.


We have already presented naturalistic explanations, and your problem of the lack of a proof for the resurrection does not go away by ignoring them.Of the 45 sources, 24 of them speak of the resurrection of Jesus. That's an astounding number of sources, more than enough. None of your naturalistic theories work such as swoon theory. For Jesus wouldn't have looked much like a risen Messiah. I doubt he could even walk with holes in his feet and his back scourged down to the bone. No respectable scholar uses that approach. And almost all scholars deny fraud theory and hallucination theory, so what you have you got?

[Parture]

I never claimed that particles, or anything for that matter, actually come from your idea of nothing (non-existence). I am saying that linear cause and effect is a rule from within our universe, to assume that it is a rule outside the universe is presumptuous.
If according to your theory there is no causation outside the universe, then the universe would never have come into being so to assume there is no causation is to betray your own existence. Any theory you propose cannot contradict itself.


Because you refuse to explain why I only could have happened in the past if the universe had infinite regress (which by the way makes no sense, considering the fact that whenever I do happen, from my standpoint it is always going to be the present) I'm just going to go ahead and humor you. Lets suppose you are right, if the universe had infinite regress I would have happened already, and therefore I would not exist today. So what. How does the time at which I occur in any way affect whether or not the universe can have infinite regress? And even if the universe can not contain an infinite amount of causes and effects within it, how does that logically prove god?Your standpoint is irrelevant. If you have an eternity to come into being, you had an eternity to come into being. Therefore, you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Very simple for a child or teenager to understand. Not so simple for you because you hate God. Any theory you propose can't contradict itself. If you want infinite regress to be true then you should not exist now since you would have happened already. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator. The common name we give to the uncreated Creator is God. So the issue is not whether God exists, but who God is? Therefore, atheism is false and you are living a lie.


This is what you originally said in the OP: if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point.That's right.


In the first sentence you claim that if infinite regress were the case, then I would have already existed, past tense. But then in the following sentence you say that if infinite regress were the case then I would never have existed, also past tense, contradicting yourself. But then you provide a bizarre reason to explain why the past could never reach the present moment, suggesting that the past could never reach the present because it goes on for eternity. This is confusing and nonsensical at best. I thought you deliberately worded it this way so you could say that infinite regress is a contradiction, therefore god. If you had just said 'if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so, therefore you would not exist today,' it wouldn't have been confusing. At any rate, the time at which I exist is irrelevant in attempting to disprove infinite regress. And whether or not infinite regress in our universe is possible, is irrelevant in attempting to prove god created our universe.The contradiction lies with infinite regress because it is both true you would have have happened already and you would never existed. You had an eternity to have existed so you should have happened before now. And if an eternity was going on it would be going on for eternity before now so this point would never be reached so you should not exist now. Any system of belief that contradicts itself is false. Based on this evidence, infinite regress is impossible, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, and this whom we call God.


You realize that 'this point' you are referring to is the present. So to say that 'if there was infinite regress an eternity would still be going on never reaching this point,' is to say that eternity never reaches the present. But how can that be true? The present is the only point in eternity that actually exists, in fact, eternity functions as a perpetual present moment. Your theory does not hold as was said, if there was an infinite regress there would be an eternity going on before now so this point would never be reached, since eternity would still be going on for eternity.


I did quote you, but i clearly said that that was the first time you ever mentioned that I would not exist right now.You didn't say that at all. Rather, you said, "Show me where you wrote in a previous post that I would not exist right now. I did not see it." So I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already.


I showed you what you originally posted, and you did leave out that detail. You worded it in such a way that it appeared that you were deliberately attempting to create a false contradiction.What I posted that you quoted was this, "I never said anything about recurring as was said many times. I said you would have already happened and gone so you wouldn't exist now. You are really slow aren't you." You responded by saying, "this is the first time you ever mentioned that if infinite regress was the case then I would have happened in the past, consequently, I would not exist right now." That's simply not true, for there are many posts I have repeated the statement "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." Don't assume I am speaking of recurring for I said "already happened." "Already" means it should have happened already and thus, not now. If I meant how you misread then I should have used a word like "recurred before". You're simply misreading. Careless atheist.


I challenge you to write the above passage into a logical argument, use as many syllogisms as you like. If you can do it, and have them at least be valid, then I can say that you are actually making progress. If you reply to this post with no syllogisms to demonstrate your logic, I'll take it as you conceding that what you have written above is illogical, incoherent, rubbish.How about I just repeat it so the reader can see there is no problem with it and thus, you are being illogical avoiding it. I am standing on the foundation of evidence but you are not so you will need to make some progress.

I see energy in nature all the time. Go check out a nuclear power plant for example. Whether there is an infinite number of forms or not you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on before this point. Infinite regress is dumb and self-contradictory.


You do realize that the universe doesn't exist in space-time, but rather space-time exists in the universe, right? It is a very basic concept. You realize those two statements in your petty self are one in the same, since the universe is space-time. Very simple to understand. Cyclical universes, multiverses, etc. don't change anything.


I'm not proposing infinite regress, I'm demonstrating how the claims you make about infinite regress are illogical. Let me be clear, the crux of this debate hinges on the fact that you claim an uncreated creator is the only logical explanation for our universe. You use a 4 step proof in a feeble attempt to demonstrate this. I have only addressed the first two steps and pointed out the logical inconsistencies present in these steps. Not only that, but I have implied an alternative logical explanation for the existence of our universe. Just in case you missed it here it is again, in syllogism form.I am glad you are not proposing infinite regress now, so stop arguing for it. I have responded to everything to show you that you are being illogical and your claim for an infinite regress is self-contradictory. You're free to respond to my points or shut your mind down. Sorry, couldn't find anything in what you said for an alternative logical explanation to infinite regress. Why keep this secret to yourself? Share it with the world. People might think you are full of you know what being coy.


Proof of a larger system

P1- Finite systems require larger support systems in order to exist.
P2- Our universe exists as a finite system.
C- Our universe requires a larger support system in order to exist.Sounds like infinite regress to me, because you will just say the next larger system above that and on and on. You would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on. Boring.


Proof that a larger system is all that is required

P1- In order for any finite system to exist, all that is required is a larger system to produce it.
P2- Our universe exists as finite system.
C-- A larger system is all that is required to produce our universe.

There you have it, I have shown you that there is no need to jump to the god conclusion.Your argument is faulty because you shut your mind down to that larger natural system. You need to ask what caused it. Since it is natural, and you admit nature needs a cause, then you are implying infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

We are left with no other possibility as usual than nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. God is the great I AM, the Intelligent mind. God is infinite but does not infinitely regress, because God is outside of time and space. Amen.

That's not enough though. You would need to receive what God did for you to avoid going to Hell.

[Parture]

There is no reason for infinite regress to be impossible. Infinite regress itself could be the infinity you are seeing in god.
Not at all. The infinite regress you propose is of nature, but if infinite regress were true, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This fact alone proves nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. There is no infinite regress outside of time. It is simply the uncreated Creator. This takes humility to accept.


Sounds very similar to the multiple reality theory, for which there is quite good evidence (look up the buckyball experiment). Although unlike you I will not make any decisions on something we have little or no understanding of, I would point out that if there really are multiple realities they would point towards the existence of an infinite regress.There is no multiple reality. We have proven the existence of the uncreated Creator so that's it. If you have little understanding then I trust you won't make a decision for atheism. Even if there was multiple realities they all exhibit cause and effect so you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.


Your brain is evolved to see the world as cause and effect. Perhaps the true nature of reality is not cause and effect. If this is the case your argument implodes. You or I have no way of knowing this is not true. How do you explain quantum randomness?True we can only go with the evidence, but if it were true there was no such thing as cause and effect then you would never have come into being and would not exist. All we can do is go with the evidence and the evidence is we see trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, atheism is wrong since infinite regress is impossible and something can't come from nothing.


Again I ask you to read up on dark matter. I think you will find we have some insight into what is beyond our universe and it seems something can come from virtual nothingness.
Our brains may just be evolved to see the universe in a certain way which makes them good at surviving. We didn't evolve to become theoretical physicists it's simply a byproduct of our adaptions for survival. From what we understand of the world around us we do not experience a 'true' reality at all, but rather have to piece together small individual laws which are part of a whole. You're confusing dark matter and empty space with that which does not exist. That which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. So the universe can't come from nothing. Dark matter and empty space are not nothing for they are made up of particles. Sure we experience true reality. This is a true world and we are real human beings.


Seeing as there is no reason to believe infinite regress is impossible this still stands and you are yet to show it to be wrong. As was said countless times, infinite regress is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. You must deal with this point if you want to talk about it.


How can you possibly know the nature of this infinite creator you seem so confident in? Please find me an answer other than the bible I will completely ignore any bible related claims. Now that we know God exists, we are free to find out where He has revealed Himself. God acknowledges Himself. Jesus does that. He also must prove Himself. Jesus does that too, since the original disciples testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for this, you convince people to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, Creator and Resurrected. The primary source for proof Jesus is God is the Bible. Historians don't throw out a document because the historian is biased. He deals with it and gleans what data he can from it.


Doesn't it seem odd that the Christian image of him thinks like a human being and is attributed with being male and capable of fathering a son?God condescends Himself to us. But it is not entirely true what you said because remember also, the Godhead is a Trinity of 3 Persons. All I can say about that right now is that God is relational in 3 Persons, so the Godhead can't help but create out of the glory that is the Triunity of God.


1. Your infinite creator argument has been exposed as wrong, but you won't accept the arguments and constantly claim infinite regress is impossible, although you have no logical reason to believe this.I've responded to all points to show you that is not the case at all and quite the opposite actually.


2. To jump from an infinite creator to a magical super-being described by the bible is a huge leap of faith for which you have no evidence to support.Don't jump, but compare Jesus. Find out who provides a proof as good as Jesus does in paying for the sins of the world and by the resurrection proof. None can compare.


3.You seem to have a psychological need to be certain of something. To pretend we are certain about things physics is only starting to catch glimpses of is insane. You're engaging in science with a bias to evidence which supports your cause. A true scientist or just a rational human being will look at all the evidence with an open mind and then make an informed decision on what his cause should be.I would be agnostic right now if the evidence wasn't so compelling. You should be agnostic and not atheist if you didn't need to be so certain. Think how insane you are since we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself, then to claim otherwise that causation doesn't exist. If causation didn't exist, you wouldn't exist since you would have no cause to your existence.

You're starting from the position that God does not exist whereas I am starting from the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects and the 1st law of thermodynamics which you violate. You're simply catering to some assumptions that violate reality out of your hostility and independency to your Creator for which I assure you that you will go to Hell for because you don't want to be redeemed back to God, and it is a choice to want to be eternally separated from God. You have nobody to blame but yourself.


I've fallen into the trap and done what I said I wouldn't...Oh well I have some time on my hands.You shouldn't have tried to think things through? Maybe that's the problem is you don't do that enough, but usually just shut your mind down. That's what worldly people do. After you receive trillions of pieces evidence, don't embarrass yourself with false humility by claiming there is no such thing as cause and effect or there is still not enough evidence even though you can't find one thing that happened all by itself. Silly. That's just being belligerent. Guess what? There is no belligerent people in Heaven. God doesn't care for those types.

[Parture]

There is nothing new about the "4 Step Proof". It fails for several fundamental reasons.
It's new because it is not the original 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm). In terms of the proof of either, this proof was available to people who lived 5000 years ago so in that sense it is new at all. We are all without excuse (Rom. 1.20).


The proof repetitively confuses the physical processes which are internal to our universe with the environment which is external to our universe.The proof includes both the internal processes of our universe as well as any environment posited external to our environment. If you want to propose an external natural cause to our universe then you would be extending this in an infinite regress, but as we have seen, infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.


Conservation of energy and/or matter, causation, time, space, etc. have no meaning beyond the boundaries of our universe.If causation had no meaning beyond our universe then the universe would never have come into being. You should not exist according to your theory.


Words such as "never", "always", "already", "eternal" have no meaning beyond the borders of space-time.This is my very point, that outside of space-time exists the spaceless and timeless uncreated Creator since space-time did not always exist nor can it start up from nothing. The uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Where does He reveal Himself but in Jesus Christ by proof of His resurrection.


The proof depends upon these concepts having meaning--they don't.The proof does not depend on these terms. The proof is well formulated based on the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature. If nature always existed you would have happened already, and nature can't come from nothing. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God the uncreated Creator.


The idea that "the lesser can never produce the greater" is so poorly defined it is useless.It need not be defined by more than that. That which does not have a mind can't produce a mind. That which has no conscience can't produce a conscience. Simple so you can understand the lesser can never produce the greater.


A nebula can condense into a star system. (lesser complexity produces greater complexity)Nothing in nature is as complex as the human mind, so a nebula or star system can't produce a mind alone by itself. The nebula is going to condense further into empty space. The star system is just a fluctuation of matter in the process. Your scope is too narrow. You're seeing complexity where there is not near as much as in the DNA of a human being. Our most powerful telescopes can see down to the 10^25 level, but we know the depths of small things goes to at least 10^125 factor. And yet this does not compare to the complexity of the mind with free will, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and God-consciousness, the ability to commune and sense our intuition where the Holy Spirit resides in those who are born-again.


A group of scientists can build a large hadron collider. (lesser size produces greater size)A group of scientists, with free will, a conscience, a mind, emotions, are certainly greater than a hadron collider. A hadron collider can't create us, but we can create the collider. In fact, the entire universe can't produce the collider, but we can.


A farmer can plant and harvest seed crops (lesser seeds produces greater seeds)A farmer is lesser than seed crops? You really have a low view of man. I don't see crops with feelings and free will.


Two human cells can create multiple humans, each with its own mind. (lesser life produces greater life)The human cell with DNA is the process God uses to create a mind. Nature can't produce a single celled replicating organism so behind nature is God who created the first single celled replicating organism. God inserts into His creation from dust a replicating organism.


If you copy nonsense from one forum to another it remains nonsense.But if you don't then you don't. How deep.


It's unlikely that you can convince anyone in this forum of the existence of your god, but at least you could try to present ideas with a modicum of intellectual challenge. Use the brain god gave you!It's likely someone will be convinced in Christ because many atheists do give their lives to Christ when they see it's crazy to believe in infinite regress or something from nothing. Antony Flew the most famous and published atheist scholar of the 20th century as of 2004 is a theist. Just think all his life until he reached his 80's he was living lie as an atheist. Hopefully you don't wait that long.

Use the brain God gave you. If you want non-space and non-time to bring into existence time and space but you don't want it to be God, then you have a problem because a mind is needed to create a mind and mere spaceless timelessness doesn't have that.

Think.

[Spacedog]

if infinite regress were true, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Yet you fail to give a reason why this is impossible. Why can I not have already happened before?


This fact alone proves nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space.

A cause cannot not exist without time


this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. There is no infinite regress outside of time. It is simply the uncreated Creator.

Overall all I'm agnostic to the principle of infinite creator. My brain tells me there needs to be something infinite, whether it's right in thinking that or not I can't say. What I'm atheist to is the idea that the creator is a conscious being, or that we could claim to know the nature of this being.


There is no multiple reality.

Please provide evidence to support this statement


We have proven the existence of the uncreated Creator so that's it.

No the existence of a creator is proven in your mind, there are billions of humans, most physicists being in this group, who do not feel it is proven at all.


If you have little understanding then I trust you won't make a decision for atheism. Even if there was multiple realities they all exhibit cause and effect so you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

I will refer you back to the start of this reply as to your opinion that infinite regress is impossible.
I am atheist to the fictional characters people have applied to infinite creators, not to infinite creators themselves. Also my definition of atheism does not mean I totally rule out the possibility of say, Allah, I just find it very unlikely.


True we can only go with the evidence, but if it were true there was no such thing as cause and effect then you would never have come into being and would not exist.

I have no reason to disagree with this, but I also have no reason to assume my birth can be compared to the birth of existence.


All we can do is go with the evidence and the evidence is we see trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is evidence that cause and effect happens not that it is the only thing which can happen.


infinite regress is impossible

I await your reply as to why it is impossible


something can't come from nothing.

Again you have no way of knowing this


You're confusing dark matter and empty space with that which does not exist.

We are moving into very speculative physics here but it is still worth discussing to prove that an infinite creator doesn't have to be your god. You are correct empty space may not actually exist at all. In fact this is obvious because because it is nothingness, and nothingness does not exist, therefore we can't include nothingness in our arguments. What we see as nothingness in our universe, i.e. the vacuum of space, is not nothingness at all. It is filled by dark or anti-matter.
My point here is that there's no reason to believe that nothingness is a thing at all, it's name even means something which is non-existent. It is possible that the infinity we are looking for could be simply the universe itself (I don't mean just the one we know, full of galaxies and stars etc but everything our little universe is contained in (whatever that may be)). The nothingness beyond existence may not be a factor at all because existence itself, at it's most basic level, could be infinite. So the idea we have is a sort of infinite breeding ground of universes. There's no need to conjure up fictional characters in order to explain the infinity which we think is required.
As for how this 'breeding ground' might create a new universe, physics is starting to find answers and if you have any real interest in this you should read into dark matter theories. Seeing as I am not a physicist myself I won't risk the validity of my argument by wrongly explaining something to you.


Sure we experience true reality. This is a true world and we are real human beings.

Agreed. Perhaps 'true' was a bad word. 'Naked' reality would fit better I think. Our reality is certainly distorted. Regardless, what we see is certainly based entirely on reality.


As was said countless times, infinite regress is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. You must deal with this point if you want to talk about it.

I have dealt with it. The issue is that you have yet to give a reason why me having existed more than once is impossible.


Now that we know God exists

We have not established any such thing. We have established that an infinite creator may exist and that there is no reason to believe it is the god you are imagining.


we are free to find out where He has revealed Himself.

This should be fun:smile:


God acknowledges Himself. Jesus does that. He also must prove Himself. Jesus does that too, since the original disciples testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

Where is your evidence for this other than the bible? The bible is not evidence it is a claim. What is your evidence for the claims made by the bible?




Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for this, you convince people to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, Creator and Resurrected.

That's like saying I can find no naturalistic explanation for the events in Harry Potter, therefore we should all believe magic is real.

Put more simply, my naturalistic explanation is that the bibles claims didn't happen. The evidence for them happening is one book written by cultists 100 years after the story they were writing about. Do you believe the Greek books about the gods on Olympus?



The primary source for proof Jesus is God is the Bible. Historians don't throw out a document because the historian is biased. He deals with it and gleans what data he can from it.

Yes as a historian myself I have found the bible very useful for studying Roman life and christian beliefs, but it doesn't prove that supernatural events took place, only that some people claimed they did (which is not uncommon in the ancient world!). There is no evidence to support their claims.


God condescends Himself to us. But it is not entirely true what you said because remember also, the Godhead is a Trinity of 3 Persons. All I can say about that right now is that God is relational in 3 Persons, so the Godhead can't help but create out of the glory that is the Triunity of God.

OK, maybe Christians on the whole don't believe god is as similar to a human as I made out, although past Christians certainly did and so did the writers of the bible. But still, I find it very improbable that an infinite creator would be able to think in a way which allows it to communicate with humans. Such thought processes require a brain (or similar) which has evolved and is based on the laws of space and time. You claim that god is outside of space and time and is infinite.


Don't jump, but compare Jesus. Find out who provides a proof as good as Jesus does in paying for the sins of the world and by the resurrection proof. None can compare.

Jesus and the bible are not proof of a claim they are the claim itself. A claim cannot be evidence for itself.


I would be agnostic right now if the evidence wasn't so compelling. You should be agnostic and not atheist if you didn't need to be so certain. Think how insane you are since we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself, then to claim otherwise that causation doesn't exist. If causation didn't exist, you wouldn't exist since you would have no cause to your existence.

No you are bias to a belief which brings you security. Any rational person who has read my arguments above will see that you are bias to evidence supporting an infinite creator, and hold on to claims with no evidence with regard to the Christian beliefs, while ignoring the mountain of evidence against them.


You're starting from the position that God does not exist whereas I am starting from the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects and the 1st law of thermodynamics which you violate. You're simply catering to some assumptions that violate reality out of your hostility and independency to your Creator

As I have clearly explained in this reply your arguments are nowhere near as certain as you like to believe


for which I assure you that you will go to Hell for because you don't want to be redeemed back to God, and it is a choice to want to be eternally separated from God. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

I'm terrified. Please provide some evidence for the existence of heaven/hell without simply restating a claim.



As for that last comment stop being so immature and pathetic. You've just proved that you are desperate for any way to get at me due to your weak arguments. That comment was referring to the fact that I had said I wouldn't be drawn into arguing with yet another religious fanatic, but fell into the trap.

[Parture]

Yet you fail to give a reason why this is impossible. Why can I not have already happened before?
I cannot think of a reason why you could not have happened before, since you would have had an eternity to come into being before now. The reason given for why you would have happened already is because you would have had an eternity to do so, if infinite regress were true. Therefore, infinite regress is false.


A cause cannot not exist without timeSince infinite regress is impossible there cannot be a past eternity of time, so therefore, there must be a cause for time outside of time. Your assumption that there can be no cause without time would be a false assumption.


Overall all I'm agnostic to the principle of infinite creator. My brain tells me there needs to be something infinite, whether it's right in thinking that or not I can't say. What I'm atheist to is the idea that the creator is a conscious being, or that we could claim to know the nature of this being.Your position is untenable since infinite regress as we have seen is impossible, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator. Since a non-mind can't produce a mind and that which has no conscience or consciousness can't produce a conscience and consciousness, the Creator must be an immaterial mind. Often people give the name to this uncreated the name of God.


Please provide evidence to support this statementI don't need evidence against multiple realities, but you do since you propose it. But if I were to try, I would say the tv series Fringe is a good example of this being an evil construct. But if God exists, He considers all world ensembles and actualizes the one that is the best of all possible worlds.

Another way to approach this is since the uncreated Creator is proven and Jesus is proven to be God, and there is multiple realities in God's design, then there is none. So "avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20).

And even if there were multiple realities, since there is no evidence for it, it's really not too helpful to think in those terms, and it would not change infinite regress.


No the existence of a creator is proven in your mind, there are billions of humans, most physicists being in this group, who do not feel it is proven at all. Actually most physicists believe a "transcendent cause" exists. Only a fraction deny this. But instead of appealing to authority, why don't you deal with the fact of the matter: If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.


I will refer you back to the start of this reply as to your opinion that infinite regress is impossible.Thanks for the referral. As was seen it was no opinion, but proven since you would have happened already having had a eternity to do so.


I am atheist to the fictional characters people have applied to infinite creators, not to infinite creators themselves. Also my definition of atheism does not mean I totally rule out the possibility of say, Allah, I just find it very unlikely.We know Allah can't be God because six centuries later he said Jesus never died on the cross, when that is all the evidence we have for Jesus dying on the cross. And we know Jesus is God because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.


I have no reason to disagree with this, but I also have no reason to assume my birth can be compared to the birth of existence. Why would your birth need to be compared to the birth of existence for God to exist? Since you are partially swayed to the idea the universe would not exist if there was no cause for time, then you wouldn't exist either since you are in the universe.


This is evidence that cause and effect happens not that it is the only thing which can happen.In fact the trillions and trillions of cause and effects is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, accepted by any court of law. If there is no cause and effect then the universe and you would never have come into being. If you keep holding out that maybe one day you will find something that can disprove cause and effect in some instances, this line of thinking is problematic because let's say there was one last thing you didn't know. Would you still be so arrogant to hold out that you needed to know that last thing to know if cause and effect always apply? Talk about false humility! You would be claiming you need to be God or all-knowing to know if God exists, but that is itself a contradiction, since obviously you are not the uncreated Creator and never will be, so get over yourself. If you were, you could show us what happened at the singularity right now with perfect clarity in all its fine details.


I await your reply as to why it is impossibleInfinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Why do you ask this question after I have said this so many times already? Why not respond to what I said?


Again you have no way of knowing this Of course we know this. Nobody has ever found something coming from nothing, and we have trillions and trillions of cause and effects which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt nature always comes from something. Moreover, that which does not exist can't produce anything. It has no energy and doesn't exist. You're violating the first law of thermodynamics. That's why the Bible says, "Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20).


We are moving into very speculative physics here but it is still worth discussing to prove that an infinite creator doesn't have to be your god. You are correct empty space may not actually exist at all. In fact this is obvious because because it is nothingness, and nothingness does not exist, therefore we can't include nothingness in our arguments. What we see as nothingness in our universe, i.e. the vacuum of space, is not nothingness at all. It is filled by dark or anti-matter. My point here is that there's no reason to believe that nothingness is a thing at all, it's name even means something which is non-existent.I never said anything about empty space not existing. I said it does exist for it has particles in it I said. We are not talking about dark matter and empty space brewing with particles. They are subject to cause and effect. What we are talking about is that which does not exist can't cause anything (no energy, no existence); ergo, something can't come from nothing. Dark matter is not nothing.

It's probably best before you start worrying about who God is that you realize that the uncreated Creator exists first, for it is not enough to know God exists. Satan knows God exists. But one must be saved from one's sins.


It is possible that the infinity we are looking for could be simply the universe itself (I don't mean just the one we know, full of galaxies and stars etc but everything our little universe is contained in (whatever that may be)). The nothingness beyond existence may not be a factor at all because existence itself, at it's most basic level, could be infinite. You are building an infinite regress of Russian dolls, but that's not possible because you would have happened already, having had a eternity to do so. Nature's existence, therefore, could not always have existence. Non-existence can't create anything either, since something can't come from nothing.


So the idea we have is a sort of infinite breeding ground of universes. There's no need to conjure up fictional characters in order to explain the infinity which we think is required. Don't worry about who God is yet. First deal with the problem of your theory. If there was an infinite breeding ground of universes that is an infinite regress, but if that were the case, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.


As for how this 'breeding ground' might create a new universe, physics is starting to find answers and if you have any real interest in this you should read into dark matter theories. Seeing as I am not a physicist myself I won't risk the validity of my argument by wrongly explaining something to you. Whether there was such a thing or not is irrelevant for our discussion, because an infinite regress is impossible. Since infinite regress is impossible then God created. Once you realize God created, come around to realizing who God is in Christ, then from there you know there is not multiverses, since it is not part of eternity future or eternity past in Scripture. I believe in M-theory, sounds plausible, or seems to be our best explanation so far. But that is just 11 dimensions, not other universes or realities.


Agreed. Perhaps 'true' was a bad word. 'Naked' reality would fit better I think. Our reality is certainly distorted. Regardless, what we see is certainly based entirely on reality. I don't think our reality is distorted or naked. It is truly as God wants it to be. It's a perfect creation He could not make any better than this one. This is the best of the best.


I have dealt with it. The issue is that you have yet to give a reason why me having existed more than once is impossible. If you dealt with it where I have not responded, please quote it. My proof has nothing to do with you existing more than once, but that if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already and not exist now, having had an eternity to do so. Why misunderstand the basic proof?


We have not established any such thing. We have established that an infinite creator may exist and that there is no reason to believe it is the god you are imagining. This should be funWe have established, more specifically, that an uncreated Creator exists, because nature can't always have existed. It can't always have existed, because if it had, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. We can talk about whether Jesus is the God later after you realize God exists, but suffice it to say you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Amen.

Don't put the cart [Jesus] before the horse [proof of God].


Where is your evidence for this other than the bible? The bible is not evidence it is a claim. What is your evidence for the claims made by the bible? I have 45 earliest sources, 17 of which are non-Christian, in the first 150 years of Jesus' death. This is unprecedented in antiquity. There are more sources for Jesus than the any ten figures combined. The Bible is filled with testimony and a claim, the claim by the original disciples in their writings and through oral tradition and creeds they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

The evidence for the claim of the resurrection of Jesus, that the Bible is true, is that these are multiple independent attestations in agreement for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. And that the disciples willingly died for their claim.


That's like saying I can find no naturalistic explanation for the events in Harry Potter, therefore we should all believe magic is real. You can find a naturalistic explanation for the events in Harry Potter. The popular author wrote these stories from her imagination and she testifies to that fact. They are admitted into evidence as fictional writing and not actual beings or persons. You're slow eh?


Put more simply, my naturalistic explanation is that the bibles claims didn't happen. The evidence for them happening is one book written by cultists 100 years after the story they were writing about. Do you believe the Greek books about the gods on Olympus? If you want to throw out the whole Bible as never having happened then you have to throw out all of history since Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. Your doublestandard exposes you as unthinking, and no historian throws out the whole Bible, but they glean certain facts they can be certain of. We have over 25,000 archaeological finds related to the Scriptures. Since the writing styles are very diverse and no one human being could write all the books, that blows that theory of yours. We have the Septuagint over 3 centuries before Christ predicting exactly when Jesus would be the ransom for sins. You can reproduce the enter NT except for 11 verses from quotes of the early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd centuries, so that blows your theory again.

Also, Acts was a biography of Paul, but Luke makes no mention of his death though does recount several of his near death experiences. Death is sorta important to mention in a biography. Since Paul died in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD, Acts would have been written around 55 AD. But Luke said this was two of his former work, the gospel of Luke, so that places Luke around 45 AD. Luke took from Mark so that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross. And since Mark worked closely with Peter, Peter's two books are quite early also, nearly right on top of the events. This is unprecedented in antiquity. Compare this to writings about Greek gods that nobody ever saw but were just assumed.

Moreover, we can apply the same principle of infinite regress to gods. If there were gods creating gods for eternity, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. God of the Bible says there are not gods, they are just made up, idols, and that there is no gods beside God, before god or after God. He was alone from everlasting.


Yes as a historian myself I have found the bible very useful for studying Roman life and christian beliefs, but it doesn't prove that supernatural events took place, only that some people claimed they did (which is not uncommon in the ancient world!). There is no evidence to support their claims. It is not common at all. Nothing could be more uncommon. There were no eyewitness resurrection claims of a God or of a person who claimed to be God. We know this supernatural event of resurrection took place because you concede you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs as documented in Scripture whom died for their testimony. People don't willing die for what they know is a lie and group hallucinations are impossible.


OK, maybe Christians on the whole don't believe god is as similar to a human as I made out, although past Christians certainly did and so did the writers of the bible. But still, I find it very improbable that an infinite creator would be able to think in a way which allows it to communicate with humans. Such thought processes require a brain (or similar) which has evolved and is based on the laws of space and time. You claim that god is outside of space and time and is infinite. Past Christians thought no differently about the Triune God, recognizing Jesus was calling Himself God, forgiving sins, giving sight to the blind, healing the sick, and praying to the Father, and said He would be raised to the right hand of the Father and give the Holy Spirit which is the life of the Father and the Son. Here we see the operation of the Three Persons of the Godhead, co-equal and co-inherent.

You think God is unable to communicate in a way to relate to us? How silly. Give God a little credit. He created all things. I am sure He can enter His creation in the likeness of the flesh to relate to us as Jesus did. He proved it by His resurrection. If you build a house, you should be allowed to enter it. Or if you play a computer game, you should be allowed to use your player character. That's a crude comparison but you get the point. Thus, Jesus can enter Hades, die on the cross, resurrect, ascend, give His Spirit to indwell born-again believers, and return to reign on earth for 1000 years before transferring His elect into the New City and you to Hell.


Jesus and the bible are not proof of a claim they are the claim itself. A claim cannot be evidence for itself.A claim can be evidenced by itself or in conjunction with others. Jesus and the Bible are proof of the claim and they are the claim itself.

Each of these books in the Bible are independent sources written by different authors in different places in different times, yet all in agreement. That's what historians like to see: independent sources. The New Testament writers give their testimony and oral tradition and creeds by these original eyewitnesses. So the Bible is allowed to prove not just the historicity of Jesus, but also His resurrection. Hence, over 99% of scholars who do thesis or peer review journal work on the resurrection claim concede a very important fact that the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

If you can't find a naturalistic explanation, then you admit Jesus is God though you may not accept for your salvation, thus you would go to Hell.


No you are bias to a belief which brings you security. Any rational person who has read my arguments above will see that you are bias to evidence supporting an infinite creator, and hold on to claims with no evidence with regard to the Christian beliefs, while ignoring the mountain of evidence against them. The truth gives me security I agree. Any rational person has seen you have not been able to overturn the infinite regress problem and as you go on in being unable to, people can see your bias in that behavior. Whereas I gave into the evidence nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and I too can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs so I give into reality. Don't ignore this evidence and the mountain of evidence in Scripture for the disciples' eyewitness testimony. It's all right there.


As I have clearly explained in this reply your arguments are nowhere near as certain as you like to believeAs we have seen, I responded to all your points show you what's wrong with your thinking and where it stems from ultimately.


I'm terrified. Please provide some evidence for the existence of heaven/hell without simply restating a claim.Something tells me you are not terrified. Since you have no fear of Hell it's a perfect place for you. Since God is proven here, Jesus is proven to be God, and Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone, then to Hell you shall go. Another way you can understand this is to realize that free will is not truly free if you don't have the choice to be eternally separated from God.


As for that last comment stop being so immature and pathetic. You've just proved that you are desperate for any way to get at me due to your weak arguments. That comment was referring to the fact that I had said I wouldn't be drawn into arguing with yet another religious fanatic, but fell into the trap.The last comment was true so why be immature about it? That's pathetic. Since all my points were strong and like you, I don't know how to overturn them either, you're acting desperate with ad hominems instead of giving into reality. Satan's minions like calling Christians religious fanatics, but think how religious you are in shutting your mind down. My faith pales in comparison to your faith, for it takes far greater faith to believe in what you do without any evidence at all and overlook the evidence provided here.

Praise the Lord, God has chosen us before the foundations of the world, and no person knows all the wonderful and amazing things God has planned for those who love Him.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps. 14.1)
Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. (Heb. 11.6)
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3.19-20)
For those such as yourself as we have proved, your future is the Lake of Fire. You're a bad person. Just like we have to lock up prisoners in jail fore life, you need to be locked up in Hell for eternity, for God would not be loving to let you out to do harm to His sons and daughters.

My prayers go out to you. Let me leave you with the words of Jesus...

Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Jhn 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jhn 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Now John the Baptist speaks of Jesus.
Jhn 3:30 He must increase, but I [must] decrease.
Jhn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
Jhn 3:32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
Jhn 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
Jhn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The wrath of God is on you Spacedog.

[Spacedog]

I will answer a few things. I have a life and therefore do not intend to read through your ramblings on proof of the bible and what not I find it incredibly boring. No level minded historian bases belief on something as bold as supernatural events on just one book plus maybe a few other writings. Jesus was not well documented considering it's claimed he was performing miracles. He was unmentioned by any Roman historians at the time. I do not doubt he may have existed. Indeed the bible accurately names people and places, but none of this proves supernatural events.

Ok so first off lets deal with infinite regress.

It seems we had a misunderstanding. I now realize you are assuming the same person can not exist more than once because you believe we have a soul. This actually made me laugh when I realized it was that simple. There is no reason to assume life has any kind of magical essence and I do not believe humans or any other animal have a soul. If someone existed in another universe with my exact genetic make-up and past experiences they would be the same person. Therefore you argument as to why infinite regress is impossible has been easily beaten. Of course you will disagree with me because you believe in souls, but that's besides the point.

Now, the other thing I'd like to get on to is actually supporting an infinite creator but showing that your god is not necessary. You certainly are slow not to understand the simple example I gave, but I can't help but wonder if you pretended to believe I was still attempting to disprove infinite regress simply to avoid having to provide a proper response. Nonetheless, we shall try again.
I shall start by restating that I am agnostic to an infinite creator. Indeed, I'm actually quite convinced that something needs to been infinite, but as I do not believe in souls I see no reason why that infinity should not be the regress itself. However, lets assume for the moment infinite regress is not real so we can move on to the important bit.
My point, which you totally misunderstood (whether that was down to slow wit or intentional misleading I am not sure), was that the required infinite creator does not need to be a magic being. This is the infinite breeding ground of universes. There is no infinite regress here I've moved on, we are calling the breeding ground an infinite creator. There is absolutely no reason for us to assume there is a conscious being, an infinite breeding ground fills all of the rational slots and none of the irrational ones.



Praise the Lord, God has chosen us before the foundations of the world, and no person knows all the wonderful and amazing things God has planned for those who love Him.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps. 14.1)
Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. (Heb. 11.6)
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3.19-20)
For those such as yourself as we have proved, your future is the Lake of Fire. You're a bad person. Just like we have to lock up prisoners in jail fore life, you need to be locked up in Hell for eternity, for God would not be loving to let you out to do harm to His sons and daughters.

My prayers go out to you. Let me leave you with the words of Jesus...

Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Jhn 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jhn 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Now John the Baptist speaks of Jesus.
Jhn 3:30 He must increase, but I [must] decrease.
Jhn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
Jhn 3:32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
Jhn 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
Jhn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The wrath of God is on you Spacedog.

Lunatic.

[Parture]

I will answer a few things. I have a life and therefore do not intend to read through your ramblings on proof of the bible and what not I find it incredibly boring. No level minded historian bases belief on something as bold as supernatural events on just one book plus maybe a few other writings. Jesus was not well documented considering it's claimed he was performing miracles. He was unmentioned by any Roman historians at the time. I do not doubt he may have existed. Indeed the bible accurately names people and places, but none of this proves supernatural events.
I find you incredibly boring also. You come across as a "dullard". The Bible is not one book, but 66 books across 1500 years by 40 authors in different places and different settings. These are the contemporary writings of the day. Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. Tiberius who died just 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources written about him within 150 years of his death, whereas Jesus had 45. In fact, Jesus has more sources written about him than any ten figures in antiquity combined, so to deny Jesus by claiming a lack of documentation is a double standard since I am sure you don't throw out everyone in antiquity along with Jesus.

Not only do we not have any historians writing about Jesus when he was alive, we don't have any sources of other Messiah's either we know of at the time. This only shows they were considered of no significance by the general authorities. If you want to doubt Jesus existed this same problem exists for everyone in antiquity so you would have to deny all the popular figures of antiquity, but what historian is that belligerent? If you have a doublestandard it shows you have a bias.

What proves the supernatural event of the resurrection of Jesus is that you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. The burden remains on you as it has been for all skeptics in previous centuries.


It seems we had a misunderstanding. I now realize you are assuming the same person can not exist more than once because you believe we have a soul. This actually made me laugh when I realized it was that simple. There is no reason to assume life has any kind of magical essence and I do not believe humans or any other animal have a soul. If someone existed in another universe with my exact genetic make-up and past experiences they would be the same person. Therefore you argument as to why infinite regress is impossible has been easily beaten. Of course you will disagree with me because you believe in souls, but that's besides the point.
I actually made no mention of the soul. I said if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Even if a person in one universe and a person in another universe had the exact same experiences they would still be two separately distinct independent sovereign beings with their own free will. You chose to overassume by thinking of a person reoccurring in history, but obviously that's not what I meant. Even if a person could reoccur in history it doesn't matter anyway because the you that you are now would have happened already, having had eternity to do so. Either way you slice it, infinite regress was wrong. You misunderstood, yes, but it doesn't matter anyway, you're still wrong.

If you want to talk about the soul that's a different matter. Even if there was multiple universes there is something underneath the genetic code that could make someone else very similar to you different. The soul is proven to exist as a permanently existing sovereign being with self-consciousness and having a spirit of God-consciousness and a body of world-consciousness. The proof is that since Jesus resurrected, so shall we. My favorite proof is that it would be evil of God to create us with a soul and spirit aware of His existence and then allow us to cease to exist. That would be like having a child and telling that child who is fully are of their parents that they must be put to sleep permanently when they reach the age of 12. It's just evil. Man has a soul of mind, will and emotion made in God's image; whereas animals have a soul too but it will cease to exist and is not made in His image. Our soul is unique which is easy enough to figure out by simply observing the fact that we are so much different from all other creatures.


Now, the other thing I'd like to get on to is actually supporting an infinite creator but showing that your god is not necessary. You certainly are slow not to understand the simple example I gave, but I can't help but wonder if you pretended to believe I was still attempting to disprove infinite regress simply to avoid having to provide a proper response. Nonetheless, we shall try again. I shall start by restating that I am agnostic to an infinite creator. Indeed, I'm actually quite convinced that something needs to been infinite, but as I do not believe in souls I see no reason why that infinity should not be the regress itself. However, lets assume for the moment infinite regress is not real so we can move on to the important bit.
We can talk about my God later, but first accept that the uncreated Creator exists since nature can't always have existed. If there was an infinite regress of nature you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. At least Antony Flew, who is far smarter than you and has done an about face from being the leading atheist of the 20th century, accepts this starting foundation before deciding on who God is.

So there exists the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. It is more accurate to call God uncreated rather than infinite because saying infinite might confuse some people thinking God exists inside an eternal regress of time. When you use the term infinite, it should be used in the sense that God is infinitely greater than us.


My point, which you totally misunderstood (whether that was down to slow wit or intentional misleading I am not sure), was that the required infinite creator does not need to be a magic being. This is the infinite breeding ground of universes. There is no infinite regress here I've moved on, we are calling the breeding ground an infinite creator. There is absolutely no reason for us to assume there is a conscious being, an infinite breeding ground fills all of the rational slots and none of the irrational ones.
Christians don't believe God is a magic being. There is no evidence for other universes, but even if there was it wouldn't matter because you would have happened already if infinite regress were true, having had an eternity to do so. A breeding ground of nature or in the supernatural realm is an infinite regress. I think what you are trying to propose is a non-being infinite creator breeding ground, but that has two problems: a) breeding ground implies cause and effect in an infinite regress (thus false), and b) a non-mind can't produce a mind for the lesser can never produce the greater. An unconscious entity can't produce a conscious one. Without a mind there is no purpose, but is arbitrary and meaningless.

p.s. I do think you are lunatic too for avoiding those passages of Scripture and for your choice to go to Hell.

[philosophik]

If according to your theory there is no causation outside the universe, then the universe would never have come into being so to assume there is no causation is to betray your own existence. Any theory you propose cannot contradict itself.

I never said there was no causation outside the universe. I said to assume it worked the same way outside the universe as it does in the universe is presumptuous.The physics outside the universe is unfathomable for us because all we know is the physics inside the universe.


Your standpoint is irrelevant. If you have an eternity to come into being, you had an eternity to come into being. Therefore, you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Very simple for a child or teenager to understand. Not so simple for you because you hate God. Any theory you propose can't contradict itself. If you want infinite regress to be true then you should not exist now since you would have happened already.

Why would I have happened already? Saying because I had an eternity to do so doesn't explain why I must have happened already. If possibilities are infinite, then an infinite amount of things other than myself could have existed before me. Tell me why the existence of an infinite amount of things that are not me, is impossible before my actual existence in an infinite regress. Saying because I would have happened already since I had an eternity to do so is not an answer, it's just repeating your assertion. Keep in mind that I am not saying the universe has an actual infinite regress of linear causes and effects, I'm just pointing out that your logic is faulty.


The contradiction lies with infinite regress because it is both true you would have have happened already and you would never existed. You had an eternity to have existed so you should have happened before now. And if an eternity was going on it would be going on for eternity before now so this point would never be reached so you should not exist now. Any system of belief that contradicts itself is false. Based on this evidence, infinite regress is impossible, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, and this whom we call God.

Again, how is it both true that with infinite regress I would have happened already and I would never have existed? Why can't one be true and the other false, or neither be true, because I exist right now? How do you prove it? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.


Your theory does not hold as was said, if there was an infinite regress there would be an eternity going on before now so this point would never be reached, since eternity would still be going on for eternity.

How is it possible for eternity to exist in the infinite regress model? The only way it can exist, is with a present moment, an infinite past, and infinite future. So why would it be impossible for this present moment to exist if the infinite past led up to this moment? Keep in mind the infinite past is always going to lead up to a present moment in eternity, whether it be this one or another.


You didn't say that at all. Rather, you said, "Show me where you wrote in a previous post that I would not exist right now. I did not see it." So I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already.

Yeah I wanted you to show me a post where you mentioned it previous to the post which I said was the first time you mentioned I would not exist now. And you never did.


What I posted that you quoted was this, "I never said anything about recurring as was said many times. I said you would have already happened and gone so you wouldn't exist now. You are really slow aren't you." You responded by saying, "this is the first time you ever mentioned that if infinite regress was the case then I would have happened in the past, consequently, I would not exist right now." That's simply not true, for there are many posts I have repeated the statement "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." Don't assume I am speaking of recurring for I said "already happened." "Already" means it should have happened already and thus, not now. If I meant how you misread then I should have used a word like "recurred before". You're simply misreading. Careless atheist.

I know there were many post where you said "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." But that statement can be taken more ways than one, and since you never clarified which one you meant, I took it how I first understood it. Furthermore, already does not mean "it should have happened already and thus, not now." The superbowl has happened already, and guess what, it's happening again. I have typed on the key board already, and guess what, it is happening right now. Things that have already happened does not mean they won't happen again, all it means is that it occurred once in the past.



How about I just repeat it so the reader can see there is no problem with it and thus, you are being illogical avoiding it. I am standing on the foundation of evidence but you are not so you will need to make some progress.

I see energy in nature all the time. Go check out a nuclear power plant for example. Whether there is an infinite number of forms or not you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on before this point. Infinite regress is dumb and self-contradictory.

Do you know what writing a logical argument in syllogism form means? Obviously not.


You realize those two statements in your petty self are one in the same, since the universe is space-time. Very simple to understand. Cyclical universes, multiverses, etc. don't change anything.

Ask any physicist if the universe exists in space-time, and they will tell you that it does not. They will tell you space-time exists in the universe. It is very simple to understand, but you seem to have trouble with basic scientific concepts. If the universe existed in space-time, what would separate the inside of the universe from the outside of the universe? There would be no way to distinguish where the universe ends, and the non-universe begins, because space-time is connected with no dividing boundaries. Since our universe does not exist in space-time, we conclude that our universe is finite, and it ends where space-time does not exist.


I am glad you are not proposing infinite regress now, so stop arguing for it. I have responded to everything to show you that you are being illogical and your claim for an infinite regress is self-contradictory. You're free to respond to my points or shut your mind down. Sorry, couldn't find anything in what you said for an alternative logical explanation to infinite regress. Why keep this secret to yourself? Share it with the world. People might think you are full of you know what being coy.

I am saying the universe does not appear to have infinite regress in which every effect in the universe has a necessary antecedent cause for eternity. Linear cause and effect cease to exist in a quantum singularity. To ask what caused the singularity is to preform a categorical error. Cause and effect as we know the concept did not exist until the big bang. It is impossible for us to fathom the dynamics of a quantum singularity and it's environment, and it is erroneous to demand that our idea of physics be applied to such a phenomena.


Sounds like infinite regress to me, because you will just say the next larger system above that and on and on. You would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on. Boring.

It's not infinite regress because I never said there was an infinite amount of finite systems. If the larger system to our universe is finite as well, then naturally there must be a larger system than that. And if that system is finite, well then there is one larger than that and so on. All that means is there has to be one system that is not finite, and that system is reality itself. Reality is an incomprehensibly vast existence that appears to contain a seemingly infinite amount of systems. But it only appears that way from our extremely limited perspective. From our perspective it appears as infinite regress because we view things as past, present, and future dictated by linear cause and effect. But our perspective is so limited, that us trying to understand these larger systems is like a single cell organism in a petri-dish trying to understand cosmology. Our knowledge and understanding is not capable of grasping concepts that we have no idea exist, much like the single cell organism does not have the capacity to comprehend the theory of general relativity or the big bang.


Your argument is faulty because you shut your mind down to that larger natural system. You need to ask what caused it. Since it is natural, and you admit nature needs a cause, then you are implying infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

The larger system has a nature of it's own, but it cannot be understood the way we understand our nature, because it is not our nature, it obeys different laws. Our nature did have a cause, the big bang. There was no cause 'before' the big bang, because time did not exist as we know it until that event occurred. How such an event occurs is beyond our ability to even fathom.

You really need to abandon your 'you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so' argument because it is meaningless in the 'larger system' context. It only applies if our universe had an infinite regress, and even then, why would it be impossible for me to happen twice, or more, given there was an eternity to do so?


We are left with no other possibility as usual than nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. God is the great I AM, the Intelligent mind. God is infinite but does not infinitely regress, because God is outside of time and space. Amen.

That's not enough though. You would need to receive what God did for you to avoid going to Hell.

The cause of nature outside itself is the larger system. Simple.

[Parture]

I never said there was no causation outside the universe. I said to assume it worked the same way outside the universe as it does in the universe is presumptuous.The physics outside the universe is unfathomable for us because all we know is the physics inside the universe.
If there is physics outside of the universe then that implies an infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do. And if there is no cause then you wouldn't have come into being.


Why would I have happened already? Saying because I had an eternity to do so doesn't explain why I must have happened already. If possibilities are infinite, then an infinite amount of things other than myself could have existed before me. Tell me why the existence of an infinite amount of things that are not me, is impossible before my actual existence in an infinite regress. Saying because I would have happened already since I had an eternity to do so is not an answer, it's just repeating your assertion. Keep in mind that I am not saying the universe has an actual infinite regress of linear causes and effects, I'm just pointing out that your logic is faulty.You keep asking why you would have happened already after it was already said why: because you had an eternity to come into being before now. Infinite possibilities doesn't change that, it would still be infinite regress having had an eternity. It is also true you would have never existed because an eternity would still being going before this point. Infinite regress contradicts itself.


Again, how is it both true that with infinite regress I would have happened already and I would never have existed? Why can't one be true and the other false, or neither be true, because I exist right now? How do you prove it? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.Why ask this question? after it was already explained why both would be true and thus contradict each other. Both show infinite regress is false and because they are self-contradictory also. That's exactly what one needs in showing your faith is false. I am not just saying it, but showed you the reason why which you are avoiding.


How is it possible for eternity to exist in the infinite regress model? The only way it can exist, is with a present moment, an infinite past, and infinite future. So why would it be impossible for this present moment to exist if the infinite past led up to this moment? Keep in mind the infinite past is always going to lead up to a present moment in eternity, whether it be this one or another.Infinite regress is an eternity of the past if it were true. It is not an eternity of the future, because this point would never have been reached since infinite regress would still be going on. And there would be no present moment because it would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Your mistaken assumption is if a past eternity existed this point would be reached. It's not so, since the past eternity would still be going on for eternity to never reach this point. And of course, you would have happened already too since you had an eternity to come into being. It's a contradiction.


Yeah I wanted you to show me a post where you mentioned it previous to the post which I said was the first time you mentioned I would not exist now. And you never did. Why shut your mind down to the fact that "I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already"?


I know there were many post where you said "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." But that statement can be taken more ways than one, and since you never clarified which one you meant, I took it how I first understood it. Furthermore, already does not mean "it should have happened already and thus, not now." The superbowl has happened already, and guess what, it's happening again. I have typed on the key board already, and guess what, it is happening right now. Things that have already happened does not mean they won't happen again, all it means is that it occurred once in the past.You can only take it more ways than one if you read into it more than what is plainly stated. My advice would be to less assuming. "Already happened" means before, not now. You just don't think carefully. The superbowl that is happening now is not the superbowl that happened before. You again assume. What you typed on the keyboard before is not the same as now. That which already happened has happened.


Do you know what writing a logical argument in syllogism form means? Obviously not.Obviously you are all talk because in reality you don't apply syllogisms properly.


Ask any physicist if the universe exists in space-time, and they will tell you that it does not. They will tell you space-time exists in the universe. It is very simple to understand, but you seem to have trouble with basic scientific concepts. If the universe existed in space-time, what would separate the inside of the universe from the outside of the universe? There would be no way to distinguish where the universe ends, and the non-universe begins, because space-time is connected with no dividing boundaries. Since our universe does not exist in space-time, we conclude that our universe is finite, and it ends where space-time does not exist. I said the universe is space and time. Six or half a dozen of the other. You are again imply infinite regress because you said "the non-universe begins". That which "begins" demands a cause. If you want to play with Russian dolls one inside another that's still infinite regress which is false.


I am saying the universe does not appear to have infinite regress in which every effect in the universe has a necessary antecedent cause for eternity. Linear cause and effect cease to exist in a quantum singularity. To ask what caused the singularity is to preform a categorical error. Cause and effect as we know the concept did not exist until the big bang. It is impossible for us to fathom the dynamics of a quantum singularity and it's environment, and it is erroneous to demand that our idea of physics be applied to such a phenomena.There are no scientists who think cause and effect don't exist in a quantum singularity, otherwise they would just close up shop and stop trying to find the cause. And if there was no cause we would not have come into being. But I am glad you admitted "the universe does not...have infinite regress" so we don't need to talk about infinite regress anymore after all this time talking about it when you didn't believe in it anyhow. That's funny. It's funny how atheists and agnostics will switch back and forth from infinite regress to something from nothing and then back again. Other words you use that betray you are "until". "Until" implies a cause since something can't come out of non-existence. The law of cause and effect remains true in all natural phenomena from smallest particle to the largest system. We have trillions and trillions of cause and effects to support this, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space.


It's not infinite regress because I never said there was an infinite amount of finite systems. If the larger system to our universe is finite as well, then naturally there must be a larger system than that. And if that system is finite, well then there is one larger than that and so on. All that means is there has to be one system that is not finite, and that system is reality itself. Reality is an incomprehensibly vast existence that appears to contain a seemingly infinite amount of systems. But it only appears that way from our extremely limited perspective. From our perspective it appears as infinite regress because we view things as past, present, and future dictated by linear cause and effect. But our perspective is so limited, that us trying to understand these larger systems is like a single cell organism in a petri-dish trying to understand cosmology. Our knowledge and understanding is not capable of grasping concepts that we have no idea exist, much like the single cell organism does not have the capacity to comprehend the theory of general relativity or the big bang.I realize you are doing the old switcheroo trick, but your first finite system can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, but then you betray yourself again, because you said "then naturally there must be larger system than that" and so on and so on, as you said, "well then there is one larger than that and so on" and so on and so on. Then the hook comes when you said, "all that means is there has to be one system that is not finite" which is infinite regress--the very thing you said you were not trying to support. So funny! Then comes your false humility that cause and effect might not be true because you think things are too complicated after your theory you just suggested has cause and effect in an infinite regress. I am getting whiplash from your doubletalk.

If there was no cause then you would never have existed; and you can't come from nothing or start up all by yourself. Silly. You don't realize it but you are trying to be God, because you are always going to have an excuse when the evidence is clearly in. You demand effectively that you need to be all-knowing to know, but only God could be all knowing. Obviously you are not God since God is not a doubletalker. The thing is we do know, because nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed; hence, the uncreated Creator. What is really disingenuous in all of this I think is you resort to quantum particles, the most complicated thing ever known to man, in which there is as many quantum theories as there are quantum scientists. Any great quantum scientist says they really have no idea about it, so you can't admit it into evidence that it shows something from nothing. Do you see how dishonest your are being? We can only see down to the 10^25 level but we know it goes down to at least the 10^125 level some calculation. Yet things could be even smaller than that. If something is smaller then it stands to reason these are causal agents, so is quite asinine to pompously assume that something in nature comes from nothing when such does not even exist. Crazy.


The larger system has a nature of it's own, but it cannot be understood the way we understand our nature, because it is not our nature, it obeys different laws. Our nature did have a cause, the big bang. There was no cause 'before' the big bang, because time did not exist as we know it until that event occurred. How such an event occurs is beyond our ability to even fathom. You have a doubletongue. You suggest a universe outside our universe without the law of cause and effect but then say "it obeys different laws" which is a causal relationship to "obey". The big bang didn't start up all by itself or come from nothing, so it has a cause. Why shut your mind down to this fact? Even Stephen Hawking admits that. He says there is a cause for the point at the end of the badminton shoot or for the singularity. If there was no cause for the big bang you would not exist, nor would the big bang. If time did not exist before the big bang so according to you nothing could cause it, then time would never exist according to your theory nor would the big bang. Since time did not always exist and can't start up from nothing, we know it was caused by that which is outside of time whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. We don't need to know the how, but the who--the uncreated Creator. God takes care of the how. Stop requiring you be God to know if God exists. That will never do.


You really need to abandon your 'you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so' argument because it is meaningless in the 'larger system' context. It only applies if our universe had an infinite regress, and even then, why would it be impossible for me to happen twice, or more, given there was an eternity to do so?In the larger system you invoke of infinite regress, it remains true that you would have had an eternity to have come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Shutting your mind down to this fact doesn't make it go away. What shutting your mind down does do is lead you to Hell, since it is obvious to us all however much some of us shove it under the rug.

Infinite regress would apply to any natural system, since every natural system needs a cause. If it didn't then it wouldn't exist.

Even if you could happen twice which is illogical because nothing can happen twice, you would have happened twice already before having had an eternity to do so.


The cause of nature outside itself is the larger system. Simple.Not only is it larger (figuratively speaking) but uncreated. This is whom we call God who has a mind which is necessary to create minds since the lesser can never produce the greater, e.g. two atoms bouncing can't create self-consciousness. A non-mind interatomic interaction can't become self-aware. It's just particles reacting according to laws. Laws need a law-giver.

[philosophik]

If there is physics outside of the universe then that implies an infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do. And if there is no cause then you wouldn't have come into being.

Not if the larger systems physics don't operate like ours. And if our larger system is uncaused, no infinite regress. And if the larger system is timeless, there is no linear eternity for me to have happened already.


You keep asking why you would have happened already after it was already said why: because you had an eternity to come into being before now. Infinite possibilities doesn't change that, it would still be infinite regress having had an eternity. It is also true you would have never existed because an eternity would still being going before this point. Infinite regress contradicts itself.

So what. So what if I had an eternity to come into being, that does not mean I had to, especially if the conditions did not permit my existence. Of course infinite possibilities changes that. If before the present moment, an infinite past played out an infinite amount of possible scenarios in which I did not exist, then it doesn't matter if I had an eternity to come into being because the infinite amount of actual scenarios did not include me. But since my existence is a possible scenario, then there is nothing that prohibits me from happening somewhere along eternity. All you have done is create a false contradiction and when I ask you to show your logic all you do is just repeat your assertion. If I said 'infinite regress is possible, because eternity lead up to my existence right now' and you ask me to explain how I think my existence right now proves infinite regress, and all I do is repeat what I said, that is not explaining anything. It is using the assertion to prove the assertion, that is a logical fallacy. But that is all you do.


Why ask this question? after it was already explained why both would be true and thus contradict each other. Both show infinite regress is false and because they are self-contradictory also. That's exactly what one needs in showing your faith is false. I am not just saying it, but showed you the reason why which you are avoiding.

Like I said before, repeating your claim to prove your claim is not showing any thing. Why if I had an eternity to do so, do you conclude that I must have existed already? I want you to explain why you come to that conclusion, not for you to just keep repeating it. Furthermore, your second claim that eternity would still be going on therefore the past would never reach this moment doesn't even make sense. If eternity has the capacity to play out an infinite amount of possible scenarios, why could this not be one of them? Saying because the past would be going on for eternity, so it would never reach this point, is the same as saying no points in time ever happen in eternity, because an eternal past would never reach any point. But that is clearly illogical because eternity is an infinite amount of points in time, and the only moment when time actually exists is in the present.

<Removed mindless repetition>

[Parture]

Not if the larger systems physics don't operate like ours. And if our larger system is uncaused, no infinite regress. And if the larger system is timeless, there is no linear eternity for me to have happened already.
If you want a physics without causation in a greater universe outside our universe then our universe would never have come into being. An uncaused larger system would be infinite regress because it always existed, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If the larger system is timeless like God would be, then simply compare God to your timeless universe, for a mind is needed to create a mind, therefore God trumps your timeless universe. Bouncing particles alone can never produce self-consciousness, volition, feelings, conscience and intuition. The lesser can never produce the greater.


So what. So what if I had an eternity to come into being, that does not mean I had to, especially if the conditions did not permit my existence. Of course infinite possibilities changes that. If before the present moment, an infinite past played out an infinite amount of possible scenarios in which I did not exist, then it doesn't matter if I had an eternity to come into being because the infinite amount of actual scenarios did not include me. But since my existence is a possible scenario, then there is nothing that prohibits me from happening somewhere along eternity. All you have done is create a false contradiction and when I ask you to show your logic all you do is just repeat your assertion. If I said 'infinite regress is possible, because eternity lead up to my existence right now' and you ask me to explain how I think my existence right now proves infinite regress, and all I do is repeat what I said, that is not explaining anything. It is using the assertion to prove the assertion, that is a logical fallacy. But that is all you do.
You had to have come into being before now if there was infinite regress, because you had an eternity to do so. That's the reason. Pretty simple. You also would never have existed, because eternity would still be going on for eternity, thus never reaching this point. So your theory is wrong on both accounts and that it contradicts itself. What was the reason? I just said, because of eternity still going on or having had an eternity to come into being. You keep avoiding this point, asking me to repeat it yet again. Why be obnoxious?


Like I said before, repeating your claim to prove your claim is not showing any thing. Why if I had an eternity to do so, do you conclude that I must have existed already? I want you to explain why you come to that conclusion, not for you to just keep repeating it. Furthermore, your second claim that eternity would still be going on therefore the past would never reach this moment doesn't even make sense. If eternity has the capacity to play out an infinite amount of possible scenarios, why could this not be one of them? Saying because the past would be going on for eternity, so it would never reach this point, is the same as saying no points in time ever happen in eternity, because an eternal past would never reach any point. But that is clearly illogical because eternity is an infinite amount of points in time, and the only moment when time actually exists is in the present.
Repeating the claim is not the proof of the claim, but the proof of the claim is the proof. You keep asking the same question after the answer was already given why you would have happened already, since you would have had an eternity to do so. It is also true you would never have existed, because in an infinite regress a past eternity would still be going on for forever never reaching this point, since it would be going on for eternity. However many scenarios could be played out makes no difference, because eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point. I am just taking you on your own words when you say there was an eternity going on in the past. If there was an eternity going on in the past then you will have to accept the consequences that go with that in your theory.

[Mystermenace]

It's new because it is not the original 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm). In terms of the proof of either, this proof was available to people who lived 5000 years ago so in that sense it is new at all. We are all without excuse (Rom. 1.20).

Okay, well, none of the points are new.



The proof includes both the internal processes of our universe as well as any environment posited external to our environment. If you want to propose an external natural cause to our universe then you would be extending this in an infinite regress, but as we have seen, infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

If the infinite regress argument were relevant then in an infinite regress all possibilities would occur an infinite number of times. This occurrence of me would just be the current one. Your rebuttal fails.



If causation had no meaning beyond our universe then the universe would never have come into being. You should not exist according to your theory.

Causation is not the only way things can come into being. Your rebuttal fails.



This is my very point, that outside of space-time exists the spaceless and timeless uncreated Creator since space-time did not always exist nor can it start up from nothing. The uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Where does He reveal Himself but in Jesus Christ by proof of His resurrection.

The proof does not depend on these terms. The proof is well formulated based on the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature. If nature always existed you would have happened already, and nature can't come from nothing. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God the uncreated Creator.

Again, you are talking about time outside of our space-time universe. This doesn't make sense.
You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent something coming from nothing.



It need not be defined by more than that. That which does not have a mind can't produce a mind. That which has no conscience can't produce a conscience. Simple so you can understand the lesser can never produce the greater.

It's a good argument if there is any reasonong behind it. There isn't.



Nothing in nature is as complex as the human mind, so a nebula or star system can't produce a mind alone by itself. The nebula is going to condense further into empty space. The star system is just a fluctuation of matter in the process. Your scope is too narrow. You're seeing complexity where there is not near as much as in the DNA of a human being. Our most powerful telescopes can see down to the 10^25 level, but we know the depths of small things goes to at least 10^125 factor. And yet this does not compare to the complexity of the mind with free will, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and God-consciousness, the ability to commune and sense our intuition where the Holy Spirit resides in those who are born-again.

A group of scientists, with free will, a conscience, a mind, emotions, are certainly greater than a hadron collider. A hadron collider can't create us, but we can create the collider. In fact, the entire universe can't produce the collider, but we can.

A farmer is lesser than seed crops? You really have a low view of man. I don't see crops with feelings and free will.

This is where you completely misunderstood my clear point that the "lesser can never produce the greater" is poorly defined. Your rebuttal is irrelevant.



The human cell with DNA is the process God uses to create a mind. Nature can't produce a single celled replicating organism so behind nature is God who created the first single celled replicating organism. God inserts into His creation from dust a replicating organism.

Are you making this up or did god explain this to you directly?



It's likely someone will be convinced in Christ because many atheists do give their lives to Christ when they see it's crazy to believe in infinite regress or something from nothing. Antony Flew the most famous and published atheist scholar of the 20th century as of 2004 is a theist. Just think all his life until he reached his 80's he was living lie as an atheist. Hopefully you don't wait that long.

The only ones who give Antony Flew those credentials are those who want to claim that a conversion from atheism to theism.

[Parture]

Okay, well, none of the points are new.
The format is NEW because nobody has stated in this precise compact order before.


If the infinite regress argument were relevant then in an infinite regress all possibilities would occur an infinite number of times. This occurrence of me would just be the current one. Your rebuttal fails.Even if something could occur an infinite number of times, this instance of this time would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.


Causation is not the only way things can come into being. Your rebuttal fails.When you say something "can come into being" you are implying a cause.


Again, you are talking about time outside of our space-time universe. This doesn't make sense. You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent something coming from nothing. I never talked about time outside of space-time. The reason why something can't come from nothing was as was said because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics.


It's a good argument if there is any reasonong behind it. There isn't.The reasoning was already said, the lesser can never produce the greater.


This is where you completely misunderstood my clear point that the "lesser can never produce the greater" is poorly defined. Your rebuttal is irrelevant.I am glad you can't show it, so your response is irrelevant. That you got all coy on me at this juncture may help you to realize this is where you are stuck.


Are you making this up or did god explain this to you directly?He explained it to me directly as has has to all of us in our reasoning and conscience as well as through His word (66 books of the Bible) and by the Holy Spirit so we are all without excuse. Not only does God tell us this in His word, since He created all things (Gen. 1.1) making us in His image (1.26,27) from dust (2.7a) and breathed in the breath of life (2.7b) directly creating our spirit making us a living soul (2.7c), it stands to reason too because you can't produce replicating life from dust.


The only ones who give Antony Flew those credentials are those who want to claim that a conversion from atheism to theism."For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).

Guess what? You're without excuse if you remain an atheist.

[Mystermenace]

The format is NEW because nobody has stated in this precise compact order before.

By new I thought you meant original; my bad.


Even if something could occur an infinite number of times, this instance of this time would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Do you know that you don't know what infinite means?
Even if this instance of this time has already happened, the next instance of this time may not have already happened; there are an infinite number of them.



When you say something "can come into being" you are implying a cause.

That's true if you assume there are no other modes than "cause" of coming into being, which would be begging the question of the possibility of other modes of coming into being.


I never talked about time outside of space-time. The reason why something can't come from nothing was as was said because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent a spontaneous coming into existence without a cause.

The first law of thermodynamics only has relevance inside our space-time universe. Something from nothing outside of our universe is not a violation of the laws that began with and are confined to our universe. That is why our universe needs no separate cause to begin its existence.


The reasoning was already said, the lesser can never produce the greater.

That is a claim, not an analysis.



He explained it to me directly as has has to all of us in our reasoning and conscience as well as through His word (66 books of the Bible) and by the Holy Spirit so we are all without excuse. Not only does God tell us this in His word, since He created all things (Gen. 1.1) making us in His image (1.26,27) from dust (2.7a) and breathed in the breath of life (2.7b) directly creating our spirit making us a living soul (2.7c), it stands to reason too because you can't produce replicating life from dust.

That is completely irrelevant as supporting evidence of the claim you made that god personally directs every occurrence of DNA replication, which is never mentioned or implied in the bible.



Guess what? You're without excuse if you remain an atheist.

I need no excuse nor need to be excused to be an atheist.

[Parture]

By new I thought you meant original; my bad.
"Nothing under the sun is truly new" (Eccl. 1.9).


Do you know that you don't know what infinite means? Even if this instance of this time has already happened, the next instance of this time may not have already happened; there are an infinite number of them.The next would have happened already also, because it too had an eternity to have happened already.


That's true if you assume there are no other modes than "cause" of coming into being, which would be begging the question of the possibility of other modes of coming into being.That's called false humility, assuming something could come into being without being caused as there is no evidence for such, and we have trillions and trillions of causes as evidence. So you are begging the question for something to come into being without being caused. That's a contradiction--another favorite of the corrupted mind of atheists.


You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent a spontaneous coming into existence without a cause.The reason was already given why something can't come from nothing: "because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics." Since something can't come from nothing, the universe comes from that which is outside of time and space, the uncreated Creator.


The first law of thermodynamics only has relevance inside our space-time universe. Something from nothing outside of our universe is not a violation of the laws that began with and are confined to our universe. That is why our universe needs no separate cause to begin its existence. That which is outside of time and space is confined to the whole in which it is included, so the 1st law of thermodynamics would be violated for that whole. That's why our universe needs a cause to begin its existence. You can't have magical fairies popping into existence from nothing.


That is a claim, not an analysis.It is a substantiated claim since we observe the lesser is never able to produce the greater. You're always violating proven principles.


That is completely irrelevant as supporting evidence of the claim you made that god personally directs every occurrence of DNA replication, which is never mentioned or implied in the bible.I am only answering your question. You asked me if God directly showed me: "did god explain this to you directly?" God told me you are jealous because you never received any direct revelation from God of His existence, but He also told me the reason is because you don't come to Him with an honest heart. "If you search for him with all your heart and soul, you will find him" (Deut. 4.29). "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer. 29.13).

God directs. He has infinite foreknowledge to see our free-choices, so as each person whom God foreknew before the foundations of the world comes into being from the genetic material of their parents to produce a living soul, God accounts for it and says it is good. All is within His divine providence and care otherwise it would never happen!

God of the Bible directs every occurrence of everything. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10.30). In order to do this God must approve or predestinate all DNA replication according to His foreknowledge.


I need no excuse nor need to be excused to be an atheist.You do need an excuse for being an atheist and to be excused to be an atheist, since nature proves God and who God is--the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Mystermenace]

The next would have happened already also, because it too had an eternity to have happened already.
By your analysis of infinite regresson everthing already happened before any time occurred. Your concept of infininty doesn't match any standard formulation.



That's called false humility, assuming something could come into being without being caused as there is no evidence for such, and we have trillions and trillions of causes as evidence. So you are begging the question for something to come into being without being caused. That's a contradiction--another favorite of the corrupted mind of atheists.
Your point is that evidence from within our space-time universe is evidence for the non-space-time outside our universe.
You are positing new physics.



The reason was already given why something can't come from nothing: "because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics." Since something can't come from nothing, the universe comes from that which is outside of time and space, the uncreated Creator.
Your point is that physics from within our space-time universe applies to the non-space-time outside out universe.
That still doesn't work.



That which is outside of time and space is confined to the whole in which it is included, so the 1st law of thermodynamics would be violated for that whole. That's why our universe needs a cause to begin its existence. You can't have magical fairies popping into existence from nothing.
Your idea that the 1st law of thermodynamics works outside of time and space is not part of current science theory.
If you are a physicist you are being laughed at by every other physicist in the world.
If you are not a physicist you are being laughed at by every physicist in the world.



It is a substantiated claim since we observe the lesser is never able to produce the greater. You're always violating proven principles.
I constantly observe the lesser producing the greater. Are you referring to complexity, quantity, size, etc. in this proven principle?



I am only answering your question. You asked me if God directly showed me: "did god explain this to you directly?" God told me you are jealous because you never received any direct revelation from God of His existence, but He also told me the reason is because you don't come to Him with an honest heart. "If you search for him with all your heart and soul, you will find him" (Deut. 4.29). "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer. 29.13).

God directs. He has infinite foreknowledge to see our free-choices, so as each person whom God foreknew before the foundations of the world comes into being from the genetic material of their parents to produce a living soul, God accounts for it and says it is good. All is within His divine providence and care otherwise it would never happen!

God of the Bible directs every occurrence of everything. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10.30). In order to do this God must approve or predestinate all DNA replication according to His foreknowledge.
So now you claim that god talks to you directly. How do you convince others that the voice you hear is god's and that god reveals knowledge to you other than what is found in the bible?



You do need an excuse for being an atheist and to be excused to be an atheist, since nature proves God and who God is--the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nature is evidence, analysis of evidence is proof. You have tried to wrap your analysis inside scientific jargon, but this attempt fails because you do not understand the science. You would do better to prove god with scripture and leave science to those who have read a science book. You won't convert anyone but you won't embarrass yourself as much either.

[Parture]

By your analysis of infinite regresson everthing already happened before any time occurred. Your concept of infininty doesn't match any standard formulation.
I am responding to the claim of infinite regress of time so when atheists make this claim I can easily come back and say according to your theory you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This is a standard formulation.

If you want to argue instead that there was no time before time, this is whom we call God, the uncreated Creator who is timeless and spaceless.


Your point is that evidence from within our space-time universe is evidence for the non-space-time outside our universe.
You are positing new physics.Absolutely, just as God says in Rom. 1.20 space-time is evidence of non-space-time, for this is whom we call the uncreated Creator who has a mind which is needed to create a mind. Your timeless nothing can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Nothing always comes from nothing. You want things to come into being without a cause, but you betray yourself with your own words when you use words that imply causation. Funny. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).


Your point is that physics from within our space-time universe applies to the non-space-time outside out universe.
That still doesn't work.I am not saying that. God is spaceless and timeless though God can't bring anything into being without causing it. The same would be true of your timeless spaceless nothing, but it couldn't even do that because it doesn't exist. There is no non-space-time apart from God Himself who is spaceless and timeless, since a mind trumps your mindless spaceless timelessness. Have you thought that you project yourself onto this idol of yours? So you are a dullard instead of having the vibrant life of a Christian. The difference between your spaceless timelessness compared to God being spaceless and timeless is yours is non existent because it is mindless.


Your idea that the 1st law of thermodynamics works outside of time and space is not part of current science theory.
If you are a physicist you are being laughed at by every other physicist in the world.
If you are not a physicist you are being laughed at by every physicist in the world.Current scientific theory agrees the 1st law of thermodynamics applies if you want to include a spaceless timelessness that itself has no energy or power so it doesn't change anything. Physicists are laughing at you and they don't believe in spaceless timelessness apart from God Himself.


I constantly observe the lesser producing the greater. Are you referring to complexity, quantity, size, etc. in this proven principle?I am referring to that which is lesser can't produce the greater in all things. The universe can't create God, but God create the universe. The universe can't create a hadron collider but man can. The universe can't create a single celled replicating organism but God can. Bouncing particles alone can't create my self-consciousness, but Go can.


So now you claim that god talks to you directly. How do you convince others that the voice you hear is god's and that god reveals knowledge to you other than what is found in the bible?God talks by His Holy Spirit to our spirit intuitively, through our conscience and communion with Him. When we pray to God this is our communication with Him which reaches intuitively into our spirit to His Spirit in our spirit. Praise the Lord! You communicate with the evil spirit in your innerman; he guides you in all things to Hell. When a person is born-again, the Holy Spirit removes the evil spirit in you so you can have God's life.

Prove all things. There is the testimony of the Spirit in our spirit, there is the word of God and the Holy Spirit that makes the cross effective, and there is agreement among members of the body of Christ. It is very powerful multiple corroboration so we can be sure!

"A still small voice" (1 Kings 19.12).

"And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting" (Acts 11.12).

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4.24).

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit" (Rom. 8.5).

"It is the Spirit that beareth witness" (1 John 5.6).

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" (Rev. 2.7).

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" (Rev. 1.10).

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal. 5.18).

"howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (1 Cor. 14.2).

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" (2 Cor. 11.4).

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6.17).


Nature is evidence, analysis of evidence is proof. You have tried to wrap your analysis inside scientific jargon, but this attempt fails because you do not understand the science. You would do better to prove god with scripture and leave science to those who have read a science book. You won't convert anyone but you won't embarrass yourself as much either.There is no science that exists that claims something comes from nothing, no evidence for such a thing, so you are delusional. That which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist! The more scientists study the universe the more they say there must be the "transcendent causal agent" otherwise know know as God. The issue for you should not be if God exists but who God is.

Lots of people have come to Christ because they gave into the fact scientifically something can't come from nothing nor always have existed, because they realize they would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And because they can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

What you are practicing s not science but "profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20). You're a quak.

You're embarrassing yourself. Tealize Stephen Hawking disagrees with you since he says the singularity or point at the end of a badminton shoot needs a cause.

God didn't say don't observe nature to prove His existence, but observe it, i.e. it's vast beauty and complexity and always abides in cause and effect for which we can render some conclusions from.

[Mystermenace]

This is a standard formulation.

Absolutely, just as God says in Rom. 1.20 space-time is evidence of non-space-time,

Current scientific theory agrees the 1st law of thermodynamics applies if you want to include a spaceless timelessness that itself has no energy or power so it doesn't change anything.

I am referring to that which is lesser can't produce the greater in all things.

There is no science that exists that claims something comes from nothing,
The more scientists study the universe the more they say there must be the "transcendent causal agent" otherwise know know as God.

Tealize Stephen Hawking disagrees with you since he says the singularity or point at the end of a badminton shoot needs a cause.


When you combine religion and science, the end result is not science.

Using science words makes your religion sound like a hodge-podge of pseudoscience and new age justification.

[Parture]

When you combine religion and science, the end result is not science.

Using science words makes your religion sound like a hodge-podge of pseudoscience and new age justification.
Religion agrees with science since God is proven to exist. God uses science in His word and implores you to get rid of your pseudo-science: science so falsely called. This is your own new age babble.

Since nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed, therefore it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator.

You lose out in life.

[philosophik]

If you want a physics without causation in a greater universe outside our universe then our universe would never have come into being. An uncaused larger system would be infinite regress because it always existed, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If the larger system is timeless like God would be, then simply compare God to your timeless universe, for a mind is needed to create a mind, therefore God trumps your timeless universe. Bouncing particles alone can never produce self-consciousness, volition, feelings, conscience and intuition. The lesser can never produce the greater.

I never said the larger system is without causation. I have said repeatedly that causation in the larger system does not follow the same rules as it does in our universe, because there is no space-time in the larger system. Therefore infinite regress is not an issue because infinite regress requires linear cause and effect which requires space-time. I think it's funny that churchwork edited my post for mindless repetition when that is all you do, and I reply to it. What does he expect from me when I ask you for your logic and all you do is repeat your assertion. Of course I am going to repeat myself, what else can I do.



You had to have come into being before now if there was infinite regress, because you had an eternity to do so. That's the reason. Pretty simple. You also would never have existed, because eternity would still be going on for eternity, thus never reaching this point. So your theory is wrong on both accounts and that it contradicts itself. What was the reason? I just said, because of eternity still going on or having had an eternity to come into being. You keep avoiding this point, asking me to repeat it yet again. Why be obnoxious?

Ok, I'll use your tactic. If there was an infinite regress, I would exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so. Why would I exist right now, you ask? Well, because I had an eternity to do so. There is the proof, built right into the assertion. This is the type of tactic you put forth. Any time you ask me why I would exist right now, all I'm going to say is because I had an eternity to do so. Is this type of explanation convincing? If you say no, then why would you expect me to be convinced when you implore the same method? If you say yes, well then you are in a quandary because my assertion is just as convincing as yours, so how do we figure out who is right?



Repeating the claim is not the proof of the claim, but the proof of the claim is the proof. You keep asking the same question after the answer was already given why you would have happened already, since you would have had an eternity to do so.

You say you have given proof, well so have I in my above response, so how do we figure out who is right? You say I would have happened already, and I say I would happen right now, and both our reasons are the same, because we had an eternity to do so. Now all we can do is show our logic, since you made the claim first, I'll let you show your logic first. Keep in mind if all your going to do is say because I had an eternity to do so, then that is all I'm going to do and we will never get anywhere.


It is also true you would never have existed, because in an infinite regress a past eternity would still be going on for forever never reaching this point, since it would be going on for eternity. However many scenarios could be played out makes no difference, because eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point. I am just taking you on your own words when you say there was an eternity going on in the past. If there was an eternity going on in the past then you will have to accept the consequences that go with that in your theory.

I never said that there was an eternity going on in the past, again I am just entertaining the idea to show how your claims about eternity are unfounded and not supported by any sort of logic. Eternity does not go on for eternity in the past, the past has already happened, it's over, there is no 'going on for eternity in the past' in actuality, it is just an idea to explain how we reach this point given the idea that our universe is eternal. Remember, the present moment is the only time that actually exists, and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment. Furthermore, the idea of an eternal past only has meaning from a reference point in the present moment, so saying 'eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point' only serves to display your fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Because if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept.

[Parture]

I never said the larger system is without causation. I have said repeatedly that causation in the larger system does not follow the same rules as it does in our universe, because there is no space-time in the larger system. Therefore infinite regress is not an issue because infinite regress requires linear cause and effect which requires space-time. I think it's funny that churchwork edited my post for mindless repetition when that is all you do, and I reply to it. What does he expect from me when I ask you for your logic and all you do is repeat your assertion. Of course I am going to repeat myself, what else can I do.
Since your larger system is not without causation then it must abide in the law of cause and effect rendering it false since infinite regress is false. It doesn't matter if you think there are different rules, causation is always causation producing an effect.

Again, you are repeating yourself as was said since all you need to do is compare your timeless spaceless universe with the the timeless spaceless uncreated Creator, for to create a mind, will, emotion, self-consciousness, God-consciousness, world-consciousness, intuition, communion and conscience a mind is needed. That which has no mind can't give life by itself, never has and never will. The lesser can never produce the greater. Address this, stop avoiding and repeating yourself. Purpose implies a mind. There is purpose, so our Creator has a mind. This is Step 3 of the NEW 4 Step Proof for God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach&p=8159#post8159).


Ok, I'll use your tactic. If there was an infinite regress, I would exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so. Why would I exist right now, you ask? Well, because I had an eternity to do so. There is the proof, built right into the assertion. This is the type of tactic you put forth. Any time you ask me why I would exist right now, all I'm going to say is because I had an eternity to do so. Is this type of explanation convincing? If you say no, then why would you expect me to be convinced when you implore the same method? If you say yes, well then you are in a quandary because my assertion is just as convincing as yours, so how do we figure out who is right?Why would you exist right now if you had an eternity to come into being before now in your infinite regression? You're contradicting yourself, for that which precedes now takes precedence to your violation of it. Drop your assertion and realize if there was an infinite regress you would have an eternity of infinite regress to come into being before now, having had an eternity to do so.


You say you have given proof, well so have I in my above response, so how do we figure out who is right? You say I would have happened already, and I say I would happen right now, and both our reasons are the same, because we had an eternity to do so. Now all we can do is show our logic, since you made the claim first, I'll let you show your logic first. Keep in mind if all your going to do is say because I had an eternity to do so, then that is all I'm going to do and we will never get anywhere. I showed you what is wrong with your proof in my comment immediately preceding this one. To repeat! Our reasons are not the same, because while it is true in an infinite regress there is an eternity going on before now, it is not the case you could happen now because an eternity goes on forever before now, that is, if you want to introduce the theory of infinite regress. Likewise, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. You had an eternity to come into being before now which takes precedes over your claim you had an eternity to come into being now, because what comes before and its law trumps what claims you want to make after.

So of course you deserve an infraction because you have nothing to support your claim, yet you will keep repeating it. And frankly that's boring, not worthy of my time.


I never said that there was an eternity going on in the past, again I am just entertaining the idea to show how your claims about eternity are unfounded and not supported by any sort of logic. Eternity does not go on for eternity in the past, the past has already happened, it's over, there is no 'going on for eternity in the past' in actuality, it is just an idea to explain how we reach this point given the idea that our universe is eternal. Remember, the present moment is the only time that actually exists, and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment. Furthermore, the idea of an eternal past only has meaning from a reference point in the present moment, so saying 'eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point' only serves to display your fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Because if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept.I realize you are trying to argue against the evidence why infinite regress can't be true while at the same time you don't believe in infinite regress, but a timeless universe without causation outside above our universe, which is a contradiction because a timeless spaceless cause needs a mind, for the lesser can never produce the greater.

Understand there are many atheists who believe in an infinite regress of cause and effects just as there are many who believe the universe comes from nothing. Silly I know. I've argued with hundreds if not thousands of them. But your theory is no less silly for you have a timeless universe that always existed and mindlessly causes our universe to come into being. That will never do. The lesser can never produce the greater.

Try to understand that Step 1 of the Proof deals specifically with claims of infinite regress in time. Step 2 deals specifically with those who claim something comes from nothing (the first two Steps in the original 4 Step Proof and the NEW 4 Step Proof are the same).

Where the NEW 4 Step Proof goes next in Step 3 is to deal with what you are contending with, for those who want a timeless singularity or timeless spaceless cause outside the universe that always existed but you want not to have a mind and be God. Simply, the lesser can never produce the greater. Your other worldly imaginary universe can never mindlessly produce this one because within this one are minds. In the original 4 Step Proof, Step 3 just says don't misrepresent God because it happens so often. Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof then addresses the idea of supernatural infinite regress even if it is timelessness. By natural we mean outside the known natural cause and effects. Hence, really Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof is the same in essence as Step 3 in the NEW 4 Step Proof. While in the original 4 Step Proof I mingled discussion of Christ throughout as the Creator and Savior in Step 3 that you ought not to misrepresent, in the NEW 4 Step Proof I explicitly stated as a header in Step 4 the resurrection proves Jesus is God with all that entails as the proof.

You err when you say if there was an eternity in the past yet you don't want there to be infinite regress of time, for that is what eternity is, an infinite regress of cause and effects in time. There is no way around it, so cut the doubletalk!

I think you deserve an infraction for repeating yourself and not dealing with the error of it: "and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment." No! Remember, it would never reach this moment because it would still be going on for eternity. While you only assert, we know an infinite regress always goes on and never stops, because that is what infinite regress is. If you don't like it, find another term. Infinite regress is taken for that which goes on for eternity before now! If you want to introduce infinite regress you must accept what you are saying that eternity is going on before now. If eternity goes on to include now then it is not eternity (infinite regress). Funny! That is funny!

You said, "if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept." Exactly! Indeed! Eternity of infinite regress is a meaningless concept it being false for the very reason you stated. So accept it! I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for your wonderful contribution for the thing you don't even believe anyway.

[Mystermenace]

...science...proven...nature...existed...cause...t ime and space...

When you use these words in a religious context they do not have the same meaning as when used in a scientific context.
Therefore, your arguments may make you comfortable within your religion, but when you export your arguments outside your religion and into the world of science they become nonsensical.

You lose out in reality.

[Parture]

Since science wouldn't exist without religion (as proven in this thread) to try to practice science outside of religion is vanity and a religion unto itself, thus contradicting yourself. What you are trying to practice is pseudo-science, not reality at all. And there is no need to export anything as science is contained within religion. To take science out of religion is possible, but only if you want to do pseudo-science. Obviously, scientists who are Christians, even other theists would agree.

You lose out in reality.

[philosophik]

Since your larger system is not without causation then it must abide in the law of cause and effect rendering it false since infinite regress is false. It doesn't matter if you think there are different rules, causation is always causation producing an effect.

There are two types of causation. Linear causation and non-linear causation. Infinite regress is an issue with linear causation, but it is not an issue with non-linear causation.

Linear causation necessitates space-time, and can be described as every cause simultaneously being an effect. In other words, cause A has effect B, and effect B simultaneously becomes cause B resulting in effect C, and so on. Thus space-time is required to structure these ordered events, where every cause has an antecedent cause in time, and results in a subsequent effect in space; which, of course, are necessary conditions for infinite regress to emerge as a concept.

With no space-time, however, there is no structure to order linear cause and effect. Consequently, the concept of infinite regress is null and void. In the larger system, which has no space-time, non-linear cause and effect is the rule. Where every cause does not require an antecedent cause, and every effect does not necessarily become a cause of something else. With no structure, there is nothing to prevent causes from happening uncaused, and nothing that requires effects to transform into a cause.

So in the case of our universe, the singularity could be viewed as cause A, and since there was no space-time until the big bang, or effect B, then the singularity as the initial cause does not require an antecedent cause. The singularity could be the uncaused cause of the 4 dimensional observable universe we now inhabit. Or it may be a result of another uncaused cause that emerged from the unstructured larger system. We may never know which is the case, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a sentient being, or proclaim infinite regress.


Again, you are repeating yourself as was said since all you need to do is compare your timeless spaceless universe with the the timeless spaceless uncreated Creator, for to create a mind, will, emotion, self-consciousness, God-consciousness, world-consciousness, intuition, communion and conscience a mind is needed. That which has no mind can't give life by itself, never has and never will. The lesser can never produce the greater. Address this, stop avoiding and repeating yourself. Purpose implies a mind. There is purpose, so our Creator has a mind. This is Step 3 of the NEW 4 Step Proof for God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach&p=8159#post8159).

I already told you that the universe is creating minds all the time, and it does not have mind. You may say that god created the universe, but all that is really saying is that god created a mindless creation, which in turn, facilitated the emergence of minds, or in other words, the mindless produced minds. How would go about proving that god in fact created our minds any ways?

It seems your argument that a mind is needed to create a mind hinges solely on the assertion that the lesser can never produce the greater, which is patently false. A grain of sand is lesser than a beach, but grains of sand produce beaches. An atom is lesser than a brain, but atoms produce brains. An H2O molecule is lesser than an ocean, but H2O molecules produce oceans. In fact, in nature the lesser is a requirement for the greater to be produced. Finally, a sperm and an egg is lesser than an adult human, well I think you can see where this is headed.


Why would you exist right now if you had an eternity to come into being before now in your infinite regression?

I told you, that is why I exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so, and I finally did. In any case, we seem to have a fundamental difference in our understanding of eternity and how it affects what actually comes into being when we philosophize about infinite regress. Since we both agree that the universe does not have an infinite regress, continuing to discuss how thing would come into being if there was an infinite regress is pointless, especially since we can't even agree on what eternity means.




a timeless spaceless cause needs a mind,

Why?


for the lesser can never produce the greater.

Oh because of this again, well good thing the larger system is greater than our human minds.


But your theory is no less silly for you have a timeless universe that always existed and mindlessly causes our universe to come into being. That will never do. The lesser can never produce the greater.

The larger, timeless system has not always existed, for if it did, that would imply time; and thus the statement is self contradictory. The larger system simply just exists. There is no past tense. Furthermore, just like our universe mindlessly causes virtual particle to come into being, the larger system can mindlessly cause a singularity to come into being--if it's laws of physics allow it, then there is no reason why it can't happen.


Try to understand that Step 1 of the Proof deals specifically with claims of infinite regress in time. Step 2 deals specifically with those who claim something comes from nothing

Oh I understand it, however those two steps only address the laws of physics from within the universe, but since the universe did not come from within the universe, then those two steps have no bearing on the origins of the universe.


Where the NEW 4 Step Proof goes next in Step 3 is to deal with what you are contending with, for those who want a timeless singularity or timeless spaceless cause outside the universe that always existed but you want not to have a mind and be God. Simply, the lesser can never produce the greater. Your other worldly imaginary universe can never mindlessly produce this one because within this one are minds.

It is not an 'other worldly imaginary universe,' because if it were, then there would be nothing for the universe to exist in. Because our universe is finite, it requires something larger than itself to exist in. What exactly this larger system consists of, or what kind of physics dictate its existence is beyond our scope of awareness.

In order to emphatically declare that the larger system cannot mindlessly produce minds, you must be aware of what it is in fact not capable of, which of course, you are not. No one is. What we do know, is that it exists as a phenomena that is capable of producing our universe, and sustaining it. This universe is then capable of producing minds by proxy. Naturally, the universe and the larger system are greater than our minds, so this doesn't violate your assertion that 'the lesser can never produce the greater,' which I have pointed out is not a universal truth anyways.


In the original 4 Step Proof, Step 3 just says don't misrepresent God because it happens so often. Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof then addresses the idea of supernatural infinite regress even if it is timelessness. By natural we mean outside the known natural cause and effects. Hence, really Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof is the same in essence as Step 3 in the NEW 4 Step Proof. While in the original 4 Step Proof I mingled discussion of Christ throughout as the Creator and Savior in Step 3 that you ought not to misrepresent, in the NEW 4 Step Proof I explicitly stated as a header in Step 4 the resurrection proves Jesus is God with all that entails as the proof.

Because I have raised legitimate objections to your first two steps, I see no reason to address the other two.



You err when you say if there was an eternity in the past yet you don't want there to be infinite regress of time, for that is what eternity is, an infinite regress of cause and effects in time. There is no way around it, so cut the doubletalk!

Again I was just entertaining the notion of an eternity with an infinite regress, it was a philosophical exercise I took a part in because I felt you were logically misconstruing the concepts. But as I noted above, we can't agree on what eternity means so this exercise was futile and is really besides the point anyways.



I think you deserve an infraction for repeating yourself and not dealing with the error of it: "and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment." No! Remember, it would never reach this moment because it would still be going on for eternity. While you only assert, we know an infinite regress always goes on and never stops, because that is what infinite regress is. If you don't like it, find another term. Infinite regress is taken for that which goes on for eternity before now! If you want to introduce infinite regress you must accept what you are saying that eternity is going on before now. If eternity goes on to include now then it is not eternity (infinite regress). Funny! That is funny!

It also seems we don't agree on what infinite regress means as well. I never conceded that infinite regress always goes on and never stops in actuality. I maintain that infinite regress is nothing more than a concept, and that it does not somehow literally go on into the past for eternity like some sort of real reverse time phenomena. My definition of infinite regress is that it is a concept, which only makes sense from the present moment; and is used to describe an infinite past from the universe's present state of affairs, if the universe is eternal. Until we agree on the defintion, there is no point in arguing about it.



You said, "if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept." Exactly! Indeed! Eternity of infinite regress is a meaningless concept it being false for the very reason you stated. So accept it! I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for your wonderful contribution for the thing you don't even believe anyway.

This is what I mean when I said we could not agree on the definition of eternity.

My definition--eternity is a term that describes beginning-less and endless time, or in other words, eternity is the present moment proceeding after an infinite amount of past events, and preceding an infinite amount of future events.

Your definition, based on what you said above--eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future and therefore is meaningless.

Note- If churchwork decides to apply one of his completely unnecessary infractions, which seems to be his M.O. with any and all atheist, then this will be my last post. I have read other post in the atheism and science sections, and if any one dare to disagree with churchwork, or continue to question a position that is inadequately defended, he pulls out the only weapon he has left, MOD powers. Seriously churchwork, why do you even have an atheist section, or allow atheist on this forum at all? You should really consider having a disclaimer that states 'read the threads before joining, and if your are not a christian who agrees with me, then don't bother joining because I will end up silencing you with my trigger happy infraction gun.' Any how Parture, if I do end up getting an infraction and get temporarily banned, we can continue this discussion over at christianforums.com if churchwork does not delete this link. I don't see why he would, it is another Christian forum. If it comes to that, I have the same screen name there and you can PM me or just start a new thread titled 4 step proof of god and I'll know it's you.

[Parture]

There are two types of causation. Linear causation and non-linear causation. Infinite regress is an issue with linear causation, but it is not an issue with non-linear causation.
Non-linear (outside of time) causation is what God did. Since the cause needs to have a mind to create a mind, you're avoiding this point.


Linear causation necessitates space-time, and can be described as every cause simultaneously being an effect. In other words, cause A has effect B, and effect B simultaneously becomes cause B resulting in effect C, and so on. Thus space-time is required to structure these ordered events, where every cause has an antecedent cause in time, and results in a subsequent effect in space; which, of course, are necessary conditions for infinite regress to emerge as a concept.I agree.


With no space-time, however, there is no structure to order linear cause and effect. Consequently, the concept of infinite regress is null and void. In the larger system, which has no space-time, non-linear cause and effect is the rule. Where every cause does not require an antecedent cause, and every effect does not necessarily become a cause of something else. With no structure, there is nothing to prevent causes from happening uncaused, and nothing that requires effects to transform into a cause.In no space time only one cause requires no antecedent effect, that would be God, because a mind is needed and only God has a mind. Alas, I am repeating myself. Every effect needs a cause that's why its an effect, and every effect always becomes a cause of something else. Always! Before you said there was "non-linear causation" outside of time, now you say there is not sometimes. Sounds ad hoc.


So in the case of our universe, the singularity could be viewed as cause A, and since there was no space-time until the big bang, or effect B, then the singularity as the initial cause does not require an antecedent cause. The singularity could be the uncaused cause of the 4 dimensional observable universe we now inhabit. Or it may be a result of another uncaused cause that emerged from the unstructured larger system. We may never know which is the case, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a sentient being, or proclaim infinite regress.I am glad you stand against your atheist brethren who try to promote "infinite regress". You're a lone wolf in the wilderness. That the singularity is the cause of the big bang in now way suggests the singularity is uncaused. Since the singularity has no mind and you admit non space time has causation, then the singularity needs a cause, that being God. There can only be one uncaused cause, because anything that exists needs an ultimate mind, for the lesser can never produce the greater. So the singularity has a cause whether directly God Himself or as result of God's actions. Your doubletongue is flapping hard when you said "another uncaused cause that emerged." That which emerges is not an "uncaused cause" but had a "caused cause" because it emerged. There is no need for you to assume a non-mind could create the universe for a non-mind can never produce the greater, that being a mind. We can go even farther than that. We can say only One Mind can create a mind since man can't do what God did over 13.7 billion years.


I already told you that the universe is creating minds all the time, and it does not have mind. You may say that god created the universe, but all that is really saying is that god created a mindless creation, which in turn, facilitated the emergence of minds, or in other words, the mindless produced minds. How would go about proving that god in fact created our minds any ways?The universe is not actually creating minds though it may appear to the flesh that it is. It is rather the conduit God uses to bring minds into existence along with His directly breathing the breath of life into the body to create a living soul at the point of inception, for man is not a spirit, nor just a soul, nor just a body. Man is tripartite: spirit, soul and body. "For the word of God [66 books of the Bible] is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4.12). Joints give you movement, marrow gives you sensation (our spinal cord). Again we read, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5.23). I'm always repeating what you are always avoiding. A mind is needed to create a mind since the lesser can never produce the greater.

There has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to even produce 1 protein molecule of 200 amino acids, and you need at least 1000 protein molecules to produce the simplest life from the dust and particles of the universe. Scientists will try to simulate this always falling short, but that's the best they can do because that simulation is just a facsimile, never the real thing, because the real thing can mutate and generate to be a catalyst in sentient life for one component of man's tripartite nature-namely, the body. It does not have a living soul and body fully developed in God's image if God were to be a man, until God breathes in the breath of life directly creating man's spirit which when it makes contact with the body, man becomes a living soul.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Gen. 2.7). Hence, "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Only man can do all these things. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so" (Gen. 1.28-30).

Only man can replenish the earth. No other creature can do this showing that God created us. No other creature has dominion over the earth or ever will but man, again, proving God did it. No creature has control over every living thing but man, because God created us. No creature can access every tree. If naturalism is true it would be more likely more than just one creature could share in this responsibility. God's going to come like the rain very soon and you will be left without.


It seems your argument that a mind is needed to create a mind hinges solely on the assertion that the lesser can never produce the greater, which is patently false. A grain of sand is lesser than a beach, but grains of sand produce beaches. An atom is lesser than a brain, but atoms produce brains. An H2O molecule is lesser than an ocean, but H2O molecules produce oceans. In fact, in nature the lesser is a requirement for the greater to be produced. Finally, a sperm and an egg is lesser than an adult human, well I think you can see where this is headed.Finally after 5 paragraphs you at least try to deal with the fact a mind is needed to create a mind. Natural elements are part nature, hence a grain of sand is part of the beach. It is neither greater no lesser just part of the system, and it has no self-consciousness nor does the beach as a whole. Atoms only make up the component of the capsule in which the body, soul and spirit utilize. The atom has no self-consciousness and never will, so it is lesser. Since all the atoms in the universe that ever existed were unable to interact together to produce even one protein molecule you know God did it. A sperm and an egg are, again, the complements utilized, for notice an egg can never produce life by itself, nor can a sperm. So it is erroneous to say these lesser things could create a mind. They can't. In fact, since the sperm and egg are already part of the God-conscious, self-conscious, world-conscious being they had not come from nature alone.


I told you, that is why I exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so, and I finally did. In any case, we seem to have a fundamental difference in our understanding of eternity and how it affects what actually comes into being when we philosophize about infinite regress. Since we both agree that the universe does not have an infinite regress, continuing to discuss how thing would come into being if there was an infinite regress is pointless, especially since we can't even agree on what eternity means.How can you have an eternity to come into being right now when an eternity is still going on before now? That's the nature of eternity, it goes on for forever in infinite regress. What you even agree too is if there was an infinite regress in cause and effects of the past for eternity, you don't believe in it anyway. So move on from Step 1 even if you don't like the reasoning, since it does not materially impact our discussion in the proof for God, because you don't believe in infinite regress anyhooo! You though should agree if an eternity is going on for eternity before now then it is still going on as eternity does and would still be doing.



Why?Because the lesser can never produce the greater. We observe this in world. Man is unable to do what God did, create a sentient being from bouncing particles alone. The best man can do is simulate it robotically and pretend like it has self-awareness.


Oh because of this again, well good thing the larger system is greater than our human minds.A larger system can't have attributes less than a mind for we have a mind. It most certainly is lesser if it is not self-aware which is the attribute of a mind. The greatest thing in this universe or any others is not just having a mind, volition, feelings but self-consciousness through these functions to the highest level in creation. And it is not enough to just have intuition, communion and conscience, but a spirit through which we have God-consciousness. And it is not enough to just have a body but the highest body order ever known, so much so, God Himself entered His creation in just such a body. He did not come as a fish or a giraffe.


The larger, timeless system has not always existed, for if it did, that would imply time; and thus the statement is self contradictory. The larger system simply just exists. There is no past tense. Furthermore, just like our universe mindlessly causes virtual particle to come into being, the larger system can mindlessly cause a singularity to come into being--if it's laws of physics allow it, then there is no reason why it can't happen.Always existing doesn't imply time always existed, for the uncaused cause exists outside of time and never ceased to exist nor was ever caused to come into being. For something to "just exist" implies it always existed whether in time our outside of time. We don't know virtual particles come into being outside of space-time just because they are too complicated and small to observe. Why assume? Since those virtual particles eventually lead to the body of man fully formed (in God's image of course) and receives a spirit to be a living soul with world-consciousness, self-consciousness, and God-consciousness we know that virtual particle could not have ultimately originated from mindless space time, since mindless space time is lesser than a mind, just as a particle of dust is lesser than a human being, because that particle of dust has no self-awareness. A non-mind space-time likewise has no self-consciousness. That's why God is so amazing because only He can do this, for His mind is the ultimate mind. His intuition and conscience are perfect.


Oh I understand it, however those two steps only address the laws of physics from within the universe, but since the universe did not come from within the universe, then those two steps have no bearing on the origins of the universe.We don't have to worry about the origins of the universe for Step 1 by those who claim infinite regress, because in infinite regress there is always another origin to an origin. I am glad though you agree infinite regress is impossible, so we can move from Step 1 to Step 2. Step doesn't need to explain origins either because it is simply addressing the fallacy of thinking something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't produce anything. Now that you agree also that the universe can't come from nothing, you can move onto Step 3. The first 2 steps destroy the faith of lots of atheists. The kicker comes in in Step 3 and 4 to win.


It is not an 'other worldly imaginary universe,' because if it were, then there would be nothing for the universe to exist in. Because our universe is finite, it requires something larger than itself to exist in. What exactly this larger system consists of, or what kind of physics dictate its existence is beyond our scope of awareness. Your statement is false, for this universe doesn't need to exist in another universe and even if it had, it would still need to be circumscribed by God. The universe doesn't require something larger than itself to exist in. It is all that has been created by God. Your hostility to God causes you to come up with mistaken assumptions.


In order to emphatically declare that the larger system cannot mindlessly produce minds, you must be aware of what it is in fact not capable of, which of course, you are not. No one is. What we do know, is that it exists as a phenomena that is capable of producing our universe, and sustaining it. This universe is then capable of producing minds by proxy. Naturally, the universe and the larger system are greater than our minds, so this doesn't violate your assertion that 'the lesser can never produce the greater,' which I have pointed out is not a universal truth anyways.We know for a fact your imaginary greater universe, that one billion pound gorilla you carry on your back, can't produce a mind, because it has no mind of self-awareness. The lesser can never produce the greater. You don't need to know all the things your imaginary universe can't do, for you would be requiring you be God to know for sure, but that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God. We have no reason to believe your imaginary universe exists, but if it did, we know it could not produce minds because it has no mind; hence, God is the ultimate cause. The proxy would be from God. The universal truth is a mindlessness can never produce a mind, for mindlessness doesn't know how to generate self-consciousness and conscience. These are two elements greatly lacking in your faith, thus morally degrading yourself for Satan.


Because I have raised legitimate objections to your first two steps, I see no reason to address the other two.Since I have shown you the error in your thinking regarding the first two steps it is highly advisable you deal with those first before moving on. First things first as they say.


Again I was just entertaining the notion of an eternity with an infinite regress, it was a philosophical exercise I took a part in because I felt you were logically misconstruing the concepts. But as I noted above, we can't agree on what eternity means so this exercise was futile and is really besides the point anyways. I realize you are just entertaining the idea, but you are also stating the things you say affirmatively, for you say since this is true, then this must be true: since this moment is always present, there must be infinite regress. Not at all! as explained why. My advice is since you are making mistakes trying to defend infinite regress and you don't even believe in it anyway, then don't worry about it. You agree with Step 1 anyhow. Move on! I was hoping we could get through all 4 Steps in the next year, so get off Step 1.


It also seems we don't agree on what infinite regress means as well. I never conceded that infinite regress always goes on and never stops in actuality. I maintain that infinite regress is nothing more than a concept, and that it does not somehow literally go on into the past for eternity like some sort of real reverse time phenomena. My definition of infinite regress is that it is a concept, which only makes sense from the present moment; and is used to describe an infinite past from the universe's present state of affairs, if the universe is eternal. Until we agree on the defintion, there is no point in arguing about it.It doesn't matter that you don't agree what infinite regress is, for you know how I am using the term for Step 1 of the proof, that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, it would still be going on, and thus you would never have come into being, because it would still be going on for forever never reaching this point. Find yourself another term. Stop trying to high jack mine in your petty self arguing over semantics. Personally, can't think of another term in the English language that is better than "infinite regress" or "eternity of the past" in nature. Look, you are still arguing against Step 1 when you agree with Step 1 that there can't be infinite regress which you don't believe is possible anyway, so move onto Step 2. You're killing my brain cells with your mindlessness. That's worthy of an infraction: not dealing with the argument and arguing over terminology.

I am not using infinite regress as a concept. I am saying if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as many atheists contend for, I present Step 1 to shut them down in their mindlessness. We don't need to agree on terms, but you do need to agree on the way I am using the term for the proof for it is the proof that is in view and not your dislike of this or that term for this or that meaning. We are dealing in meanings and not terms, but it's good to use the best term possible, so I am glad you couldn't find one better than the one I used for what I am describing.


This is what I mean when I said we could not agree on the definition of eternity.We agreed, you just didn't realize it, that infinite regress is impossible (my definition).


My definition--eternity is a term that describes beginning-less and endless time, or in other words, eternity is the present moment proceeding after an infinite amount of past events, and preceding an infinite amount of future events.Infinite regress is eternity of the past. Infinite progress is eternity in the future. The word "eternity" by itself is lacking because it leaves out which directly specifically we are talking about, for there can be eternity of the future but none of the past or an eternity of the past but then none in the future (for the sake of those who are arguing for an infinite regress still). Since you agree on the meaning, after all this time why are you still arguing about Step 1 when you agree infinite regress is impossible? It's because of your flesh, I assure you, that needs to die on the cross with Christ to your petty self. Are you selfless enough to allow God to do this for you to bring you to that sure death to your old man? so you can move on to Step 2? Even if you can't, move on anyway! It will be 2012 before we know it.


Your definition, based on what you said above--eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future and therefore is meaningless.I never said, "eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future." You deserve another infraction for blatantly sinning bearing false witness. I said since infinite regress is false then there is not a past eternity, so this present moment would be true and so could be future eternity. What is meaningless is to profess infinite regress when it doesn't exist. You're slow eh?


Note- If churchwork decides to apply one of his completely unnecessary infractions, which seems to be his M.O. with any and all atheist, then this will be my last post. I have read other post in the atheism and science sections, and if any one dare to disagree with churchwork, or continue to question a position that is inadequately defended, he pulls out the only weapon he has left, MOD powers. Seriously churchwork, why do you even have an atheist section, or allow atheist on this forum at all? You should really consider having a disclaimer that states 'read the threads before joining, and if your are not a christian who agrees with me, then don't bother joining because I will end up silencing you with my trigger happy infraction gun.' Any how Parture, if I do end up getting an infraction and get temporarily banned, we can continue this discussion over at christianforums.com if churchwork does not delete this link. I don't see why he would, it is another Christian forum. If it comes to that, I have the same screen name there and you can PM me or just start a new thread titled 4 step proof of god and I'll know it's you.These infractions are necessary because if you keep erring unchecked, repeating yourself mindlessly, you waste valuable space and time. If I was on a forum and made your same mistakes I would expect the same infraction for repetitively redundant errors. Let us give thanks to God that there are good moderators here at biblocality forums. Notice you are not banned, but these infractions are healthy for you, so you can remember not to make the same mistakes again. You shouldn't promote another forum just because of your own obstinacy.

We are banned at christianforums.com and so is the word biblocality. You realize the majority control of that forum is run by the Roman Church, the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8) the Bible says. Go see for yourself. Hope to have you back here and continue the discussion when you feel ready, possibly even to give your life to Christ.

[Mystermenace]

Since science wouldn't exist without religion (as proven in this thread)

This was never proven in this thread. Go infract yourself.



to try to practice science outside of religion is vanity and a religion unto itself, thus contradicting yourself. What you are trying to practice is pseudo-science, not reality at all. And there is no need to export anything as science is contained within religion. To take science out of religion is possible, but only if you want to do pseudo-science. Obviously, scientists who are Christians, even other theists would agree.

This has not been shown to be obvious. Go infract yourself.



You lose out in reality.
This is a direct copy of my statement. Go infract yourself.

As I have stated, you need to specify the definitions of science that your religion uses. The common definitions don't apply.
Imagine we are the only two engaged in this debate. Your gibberish is a waste of time because I ignore it, it's not relevant.

We cannot debate because you do not speak to my rebuttals. Each argument in the 4 step argument is old and was long ago discredited. If you don't have enough respect for your god to understand your own arguments, or to put forth the effort to develop and present new strong arguments, no one else will either.

[Parture]

This was never proven in this thread. Go infract yourself.
This was proven by observing nature which you did not try to refute in the 4 Step Proof for God. Your avoiding is worthy of an infraction.


This has not been shown to be obvious. Go infract yourself.Self-declaration is worthy of another infraction.


This is a direct copy of my statement. Go infract yourself.This is not subject to infractions.


As I have stated, you need to specify the definitions of science that your religion uses. The common definitions don't apply.
Imagine we are the only two engaged in this debate. Your gibberish is a waste of time because I ignore it, it's not relevant.Again, self-asserting and false accusation, for you don't back your claim.


We cannot debate because you do not speak to my rebuttals. Each argument in the 4 step argument is old and was long ago discredited. If you don't have enough respect for your god to understand your own arguments, or to put forth the effort to develop and present new strong arguments, no one else will either.There is nothing to rebut when you just assert your claim without trying to defend it. Boring. You are a dullard.

Don't think God's proof of Himself changes over time. It is the same powerful proof from the beginning. You can't improve on what is perfect.

It would seem quite disingenuous to want another proof while the proof given is not only the best one, but unchallenged by you.

[philosophik]

These infractions are necessary because if you keep erring unchecked, repeating yourself mindlessly, you waste valuable space and time. If I was on a forum and made your same mistakes I would expect the same infraction for repetitively redundant errors. Let us give thanks to God that there are good moderators here at biblocality forums. Notice you are not banned, but these infractions are healthy for you, so you can remember not to make the same mistakes again. You shouldn't promote another forum just because of your own obstinacy.

You did get infractions on another forum and was banned, that is why you promoted this forum. Man your are the biggest hypocrite of the greatest magnitude. The moderator here is absolutely horrible, a good moderator doesn't hand out infractions because posters disagree with him, but that is churchworks greatest weapon, MOD power. I have read his 4 step proof and all his critics amply dismantled it, so what does he do, hands out infractions. Pathetic. The only reason you don't get any infractions here is because you share the exact same delusions as him.


We are banned at christianforums.com and so is the word biblocality. You realize the majority control of that forum is run by the Roman Church, the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8) the Bible says. Go see for yourself. Hope to have you back here and continue the discussion when you feel ready, possibly even to give your life to Christ.

Why am I not surprised that you were banned. I belong to 8 other forums and have never received an infraction for what I say. Three of them are christian forums, not including this joke site. I don't think it's coincidence that out of the three forums we have mutually joined, you were banned from two of them, and the only one you were not banned from is a forum where the moderator has the same horrible debating skills, the same pathetic arguments, and shares the same self righteous attitude. I would love to respond to the rest of your post, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it on a forum where the moderator holds your hand and pats you on the back for continually doing things that gets you banned on any other respectable forum. If you want to continue this debate, PM and we can agree on another forum to join, but I'm not wasting my time on this one anymore.

[Parture]

You did get infractions on another forum and was banned, that is why you promoted this forum. Man your are the biggest hypocrite of the greatest magnitude. The moderator here is absolutely horrible, a good moderator doesn't hand out infractions because posters disagree with him, but that is churchworks greatest weapon, MOD power. I have read his 4 step proof and all his critics amply dismantled it, so what does he do, hands out infractions. Pathetic. The only reason you don't get any infractions here is because you share the exact same delusions as him.
Distinguish between getting banned or receiving infractions because the moderator wants to conceal or protect their own false teaching which happens quite often on other forums. Compare that to righteously giving infractions and temporarily banning you. I'm on these forums because nowhere else on the planet is there a forum that teaches all these 5 truths: dividing, spirit, soul and body; osas arminian; partial rapture; gap restoration; and Scriptural locality among other correct teachings in the questions in your profile.

I haven't seen anywhere anyone able to dismantle the 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/new_4step_proof.htm), so I am glad you can only say you can, but don't actually do so in reality. All the moderators here are subject to infractions and have at times. Nobody has absolute authority but God, but here from the Head which is Christ His authority flows down from the Apostles and Elders to the body of Christ as God desires, unlike other forums. If you have any issues with an infraction you are free to try to contest it. You deserve an infraction for mindlessly self-declaring the 4 Step Proof has been disproven even though you don't present any disproof. And for going off topic on this thread which is about the false teachings at atheist.net. You're just trying to misdirect.


Why am I not surprised that you were banned. I belong to 8 other forums and have never received an infraction for what I say. Three of them are christian forums, not including this joke site. I don't think it's coincidence that out of the three forums we have mutually joined, you were banned from two of them, and the only one you were not banned from is a forum where the moderator has the same horrible debating skills, the same pathetic arguments, and shares the same self righteous attitude. I would love to respond to the rest of your post, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it on a forum where the moderator holds your hand and pats you on the back for continually doing things that gets you banned on any other respectable forum. If you want to continue this debate, PM and we can agree on another forum to join, but I'm not wasting my time on this one anymore.What "things" are you talking about? What respectable forum? Aren't you just flailing, sinning bearing false witness right now? Even with your bad behavior, you're always welcome here. The door is always open unlike other forums.

I am not aware of any forum I am not banned on, so not sure what forum you are talking about. Of course they ban in order to cling to or protect some false teaching. In previous centuries I would have been killed. Now they just ban. Why be so proud of that? It is self-righteousness and sin that is the cause of this. If you want to talk further, you are not banned unlike other forums who ban. There is no permanent banning here. We are an open book for the Lord.

The Bible explains exactly what is going on. John the Baptist said of Jesus, "He has come from above and is greater than anyone else. I am of the earth, and my understanding is limited to the things of earth, but he has come from heaven" (John 3.31). Jesus said, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not. That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am who I say I am, you will die in your sins" (John 8.23,24).

And Jesus said, "When the world hates you, remember it hated me before it hated you. The world would love you if you belonged to it, but you don't. I chose you to come out of the world, and so it hates you" (John 15.18,19). To "come out of the world" is from where one use to belong. Whereas Jesus is "from above." You are "from below." Jesus never had to come out of the world, because "he has come from heaven."

The reason you don't get banned as much is because "you belong to the world." The world hates true Christians because they are jealous of us. If you play by the rules of the world, and remember Satan is the god of this world, you will receive the reward of the world, but it all goes to dust eventually and perdition. But if you play by God's rules, there is everlasting life and eternal blessings. You're simply on the wrong team and priding yourself in that lie. The Bible says you lose in the end.