The next trick that a charlatan evolutionist, cosmologist, atheist or agnostic (as apposed to a regenerated one), being intellectually dishonest with themselves, tries to pull over your eyes (as well as their own in the might of their flesh) is through the question, "why can't God have a creator?" Because, by definition that no longer makes God uncreated, now does it? The subject matter, God of the Bible, of the 4 Step Proof then changes. By definition, God IS the Great I AM and is uncreated (as proven in Step 1 and Step 2). The subject is God uncreated, not as a god able to be created. Do not speak of God, then redefine Him, while remaining calling Him God or calling him a god. You would then be trying to disprove something else, which is misreading the 3rd Step. Not only is this disrespectful, but cunning, unethical and coy. Be "not
The goal of the evolutionist starts with the desired conclusion. They want erotic liscence and therefore they must inductively arive at the conclusion there is no God nor judgement.
152 comments
that shit again? that was nothing but pages upon pages of logical falacies claimed as "proof" wasnt it?
They want erotic liscence
They want erotic liscence
Proof
You guys are funny how you read sweet nothings into the what was said.
Hey A Friend, what is the number one mistake of fundies trying to "save" others(well, besides the general "brownie-points in heaven for me" patronizing attitude)? It is the stupid attempts at fake logic or fraud science to defend what is basically a leap of faith. God or gods are a personal, private decision based on a belief and simply are not provable outside of a personal acknowledgement of that belief! It is patently absurd to waste time on a proof that simply can not be proven or an existence that cannot be measured, so why would we bother? The Bible(or any other religious tome) is no proof of anything except that some men before have believed in a God(or gods), certainly not proof of said God's existence. PS Your buddy coadie brought in the "sweet nothing" aspect with his cute remark about non-believers wanting erotic license and not believing to avoid judgement from something that they don't believe in anyway(?)!
You know you guys are really boring and don't make this challenging for me at all.
THE SAME FINDINGS REMAIN:THE 4 STEP PERFECT PROOF FOR GOD OF THE BIBLE . IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN ABLE TO THEY COULD SHOW IT HERE BY NOW.
THE TRINITY IS THE TRIUNE GODHEAD OF GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON AND GOD THE SPIRIT. THE TRINITY IS THE ONLY UNCREATED BEING.
REST ASSURED IF YOU DON'T RECEIVE JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR, UNCREATED DEITY, WHO DIED ON THE CROSS TO ATONE FOR YOUR SINS AND WAS RESURRECTED AND MULTIPLY ATTESTED, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HELL.
WHAT GOD WANTS YOU TO SEE IS THAT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THE PROOF OF HIM, SO KNOW THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES. EITHER YOU RECEIVE HIS FORGIVENESS THROUGH HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, OR YOU NEED TO GO TO HELL.
JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO REALIZE HOW EVIL YOUR POSITION IS. GOD CREATED YOU, PROVED HIMSELF, AND YOU CALL HIM A LIAR.
WHY? BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO BE FORGIVEN BY GOD FOR YOUR SINS. YOU LOVE YOUR SINS TOO MUCH AND WOULD PREFER TO BE ETERNALLY SEPARATED FROM GOD. YES, THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. JUST LIKE WE THROW CRIMINALS IN JAIL, GOD WILL NEED TO THROW YOU IN HELL FOREVER TO KEEP YOU ETERNALLY SEPARATED FROM HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
THANK YOU JESUS! AMEN.
YOU ARE ALWAYS FREE TO DISCUSS AT BIBLOCALITY FORUMS AND CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITHOUT ALL THE SPAM-IRRELEVANT AND INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS-AND TROLLING-FALSE STATEMENTS FOR INTERNET LURING. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN SEE THE NEED FOR A FORUM THAT DOESN'T LET PEOPLE GO ON REPETITIVE MINDLESS TIRADES AND BELLIGERENTLY CONTINUE TO MISREAD AND MISREPRESENT.
FSTDT SHOULD GET RID OF ITS CENSORING PROGRAM BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE. YOU CAN'T POST QUITE OFTEN UNLESS YOU FIRST TYPE A COUPLE LETTERS, THEN EDIT THE POST WITH WHAT YOU WANTED TO POST ORIGINALLY. OTHERWISE IT BLOCKS THE POST.
{sarcasm}Sigh... yes, yes, fair cop. The only reason I'm an atheist is that Christian morality was making me feel guilty about the daily orgies.{/sarcasm}
There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved.
Prove that this is anything other than your opinion. Define your terms, and demonstrate how you have tested your hypothesis.
That being the case
You have not yet demonstrated that this is the case.
obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects.
You are the only one who has suggested an eternity. Even atheists do not suggest an eternity - they suggest around 13 billion years since the Big Bang, several billions of years since early life developed on Earth, and 10,000 years of human civilisation.
Basically, even if you prove there is not an eternity of cause and effect, you are not offering any proof for God.
nature could not have caused itself.
Nature is not claimed to have 'created itself'. Chemical reactions catalysed by tremendous energy are believed to have led to the development of what would become nature.
Thus, the uncreated created.
Unproven conclusion.
I don't actually mind you believing what you believe, and I can understand you trying to convince us of it, but I like reason and logic, and your complete disrespect for these processes just gets my goat. I don't want to try to change your beliefs, but why can't you just accept that they are a matter of faith? You don't need evidence for faith, so why try to manipulate some into existence? Just take your faith and go in peace.
@Wise Son
Prove that this is anything other than your opinion. Define your terms, and demonstrate how you have tested your hypothesis.
I already have.
You have not yet demonstrated that this is the case.
I have.
You are the only one who has suggested an eternity. Even atheists do not suggest an eternity - they suggest around 13 billion years since the Big Bang, several billions of years since early life developed on Earth, and 10,000 years of human civilisation.
Basically, even if you prove there is not an eternity of cause and effect, you are not offering any proof for God.
I don't suggest an eternity, but show that there is no eternity of the past. I am glad you admit there was not an eternity of the past, and since nothing in nature happens all by itself, the only possibility is the uncreated created. Do agree?
Yes, atheists, many I have spoken to have said to me there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects.
By the way, I thought you said you did not believe in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, so why do you say "even if you prove there is not an eternity of cause and effect"? It's like you don't truly believe it yet. An atheist doesn't ask the question what caused the Big Bang?
The proof for God was already given. Since the uncreated created, then we find out only Jesus is uncreated and He trumps all other claims on being God because He said He was God, was sinless, and was resurrected. There are no other competing resurrections.
Nature is not claimed to have 'created itself'. Chemical reactions catalysed by tremendous energy are believed to have led to the development of what would become nature.
Since nature did not cause itself, then the only other possibility is that the uncreated created. Do you believe this? And do you ask yourself the question what caused "Chemical reactions catalysed by tremendous energy are believed to have led to the development of what would become nature"?
Unproven conclusion.
I don't actually mind you believing what you believe, and I can understand you trying to convince us of it, but I like reason and logic, and your complete disrespect for these processes just gets my goat. I don't want to try to change your beliefs, but why can't you just accept that they are a matter of faith? You don't need evidence for faith, so why try to manipulate some into existence? Just take your faith and go in peace.
You can say I don't respect the process of logic, but I do.
While you accept your faith blindly, the Christian faith is not blind, but proven. That's the difference. Why would you want to accept blindly?
We don't manipulate, but just tell the truth, so why accuse of manipulating?
Christians have eternal peace, but we don't run away and hide ourselves. We go where we can help people.
Why don't you treat others as you would like to be treated and "Just take your faith and go in peace"?
The reason is because there is no peace in blind faith. Why don't you respect logic and reason?
Well A Friend so far you have proven that you believe in some idiotic drivel that proves that "you believe in some idiotic drivel"! "Uncreated=created", prove it! You can't even get your first step out without contradiction! Alpha Centauri=green cheese, disprove it! Prove a supernatural event occurred! Forget your Bible verses as I said before they prove nothing except that either someone in the past believed or someone ran a very sucessful "ad campaign" for their new religion. Your cute little proof proves nothing except that anyone can make something look like it proves something if you are allowed to set parameters that make it impossible for the other guy. Your proof of God is simply a semantic farce. PS I think that this proof crap is idiotic and I'm not even an atheist. It makes Christianity look desperate!
Step 1- begs the question; you need to define "sin," and prove that a belief in god decreases it. i for one find the idea highly suspect. It is certainly possible that we can reach a far more peaceful society in the future, but I doubt it will have anything to do with personal faith or superstition. any god exists, let alone the god of the bible. Plus, this is instructions, not even some attempt at an argument. I'd take this one out if i were you, and stick to the faulty logic.
Step 4- Again, begs the question. And i thought we weren't talking about multiple gods in this prooof?
So please, just get rid of the whole "proof" thing. You can't proove there's a god; faith is a personal matter. When you use bad logical and circular agruments to demonstrate your faith as an iffefutable fact only makes you look foolish.
Also, stop posting the damn thing. You're turning into a spammer.
Troy, admittedly in the last post you turned into a shit-fest, I misread the word conscience.
Don't shut your mind down, go check statistics for yourself. On a per capita basis the murder rate has gone down. It is very noticeable every decade also.
Step 1- begs the question; you need to define "sin," and prove that a belief in god decreases it. i for one find the idea highly suspect. It is certainly possible that we can reach a far more peaceful society in the future, but I doubt it will have anything to do with personal faith or superstition.
Step 2- You never defined the uncreated, nor proved that it can exist. You're simply avoiding the "what created god" argument by slightly shifting the goalposts.
Step 3- this is just silly. Sure, you could plug any old god into your "proof," but it doesn't really make a difference. You haven't proven any god exists, let alone the god of the bible. Plus, this is instructions, not even some attempt at an argument. I'd take this one out if i were you, and stick to the faulty logic.
Step 4- Again, begs the question. And i thought we weren't talking about multiple gods in this prooof?
So please, just get rid of the whole "proof" thing. You can't proove there's a god; faith is a personal matter. When you use bad logical and circular agruments to demonstrate your faith as an iffefutable fact only makes you look foolish.
Also, stop posting the damn thing. You're turning into a spammer.
Step 1- Sin was already defined as something you do wrong, like for example, murder, which puts you in jail.
The Proof does not make any requirement for believing in a god to believe in the exponential progression of conscience we observe scientifically. Rather, the exponential progression in conscience is observable on its own with no mention of God or a god.
Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by iself, the only other possibility is the uncreated created. This proves the uncreated created. The definition of uncreated is nothing created it.
If you want to ask what created God, then go to Step 4. It says that no god creating gods (or God) is possible, because you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin if that were the case, yet we know that is not possible because you still sin.
Step 3 - You miss the point. The point of Step 3 is to say If you want to disprove quality of A of some god, then don't wast your time, because God of the Bible does not have that quality.
Step 4 - There is no begging the question. It is not possible there can be an eternity of the past of supernatural events or gods created events or gods because you would still not be sinning now.
So the Proof for God of the Bible stands, and the reason why Christians have faith is because God is proven.
Though you may have faith in something blindly Christians don't.
Shutting your mind down to these facts causes you to be qualified as a spammer.
The point being, the exponential progession of conscience shows that it will not take much time at all to reach sinlessness in the saved, so there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created.
Don't shut your mind down, go check statistics for yourself. On a per capita basis the murder rate has gone down. It is very noticeable every decade also.
Shutting your mind down to these facts causes you to be qualified as a spammer.
No, Troy. If you are going to claim there has been an exponential growth in conscience over the past six thousand years, it's up to you to prove that. Those are the rules of logic, deal with it. When you back up your claim, then we'll talk about refutations. Until then, you've proved nothing.
@James
No, it's not already proven. If newspapers and government statistics tell me anything, it's that violent crime is rising, and that it is significantly higher than it was 100 years ago. I don't claim to know what the murder rates were before then, but if you do, you need to provide your sources, not colloquial evidence and your word.
There is 6 billion people on the earth. The murder rate is signifantly less than it was in the 1st century AD when the population was maybe 200 million or 1000 BC when it was only about 100 million.
"the reason why Christians have faith is because God is proven."
This seem like a contradiction in terms to anyone else? Or did I miss the flame war?
It's a contradiction to you because your faith is blind, but the Christian faith is substantiated and proven.
Interestingly, even if the 4-step proof weren't as wrong as sex-doll made of herpes scabs, it would mean nothing.
@A Friend
There is 6 billion people on the earth. The murder rate is signifantly less than it was in the 1st century AD when the population was maybe 200 million or 1000 BC when it was only about 100 million.
only Jesus is uncreated He trumps all other claims on being God because He said He was God, was sinless, and was resurrected.
Anyone can claim the first 2, and we have only anecdotal evidence of the third.
Since nature did not cause itself, then the only other possibility is that the uncreated created. Do you believe this?
No, for the reasons I explained above. Physical and chemical processes are a far more likely possibility for the origin of biology than supernatural sources.
While you accept your faith blindly,
This is not a question of faith, I accept what has been shown to be the most likely explanation, and you've presented nothing to make your faith appear a more likely explanation.
the Christian faith is not blind, but proven.
Well, clearly it's not proven. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's your personal, subjective choice. Just accept it as such. If your 4 proofs were as perfect as you say, wouldn't they be being shouted ot from every church in the world? Wouldn't they be on the news everyday, or at least on all those evangelical programmes they have, if they offered conclusive proof for one of the biggest faiths on the globe? Doesn't the fact that they aren't suggest that even your fellow Christians aren't convinced by them?
We don't manipulate, but just tell the truth, so why accuse of manipulating?
You're highly selective of what particular bits of the truth you tell, and mix bits of opinion and faith in with stuff that's supposed to be objective.
Why don't you treat others as you would like to be treated and "Just take your faith and go in peace"?
Where should I go? You came here to spam us with your 'proofs', and expect us to change our beliefs based on them. I don't expeect or necessarily want you to change or lose your faith or beliefs, I just want to argue and discuss rationally and logically with you, which is how I, in turn, would like to be treated.
Why don't you respect logic and reason?
Believe me, I aspire to those in all things, which is why your spam started to irritate me.
@David B.
Which would only be proof if (a) it was true, and (b) murder was the only sin. It's not, adultery is on the increase (ask any fundie), and lasciviousness, and burglary (covetousness) and much, much more.
Yes it is true, the population was not billions of people 3000 years ago. No scholar would suggest such a thing.
Murder does not need to be the only sin. By talking about murder, what is being established is a very obvious sin using the minimal facts approach: something we can all agree on.
Obviously there are other sins, which you cite.
So it is true, there is sin. And on a per capita basis, burglary, adultery and lasciviousness is going down.
Check government statistics. burglary per number of households has decreased from previous decades and previous centuries. Even if they go up in number, what matters is a per capita basis; clearly these things have gone down. Even regarding marriage it was common practice to have multiple wives. Now that is frowned upon. Which would mean each time you have sex with your different spouse, you are committing adultery, because one man and woman constitute marriage, not multiple sex partners.
Lasciviousness has gone down too on a per capita basis. It hasn't ceased to exist, but it has gone down. Christians know this.
I don't know who these fundis are you speak of.
The reason you are confused is because you don't see how massive the population is to realize it has gone down. These sins have not increased at the rate of increase of the size of the population.
Even so, there is going to be one big battle coming in the Great Tribulation. But it is the last for this dispenstation and ushers in the millennial kingdom where there is no war and Christ reigns in Person.
@Wise Son
OK, first off, conscience is not an organ, it's a mental process.
Why do you take the wrong definition of the word organ to misrepresent? That is disingenuous. Obviously what is meant is a functioning unit or element of our being.
You're talking about rationalization here. However, more often reasoning can helpus realise that something that seems justifiable actually isn't. If anything, it is the application of honest logic that has helped mankind achieve the 'higher conscience' you refer to.
Reasoning that is falsely rationalized does not help conscience but hardens it. The mind aiding the spirit is proper reasoning that can stimulate conscience to see clearly. Distinguish these two results. It is not always true that more often than not one's particular brand of reasoning helps more than hurts. For look at all the reasonings you use, and you are always wrong, thus are bound for hell. The vast bulk of people are going to hell for calling Jesus a liar, so how is this good reasoning when the evidence suggest otherwise?
It's one way, but I doubt you've adjusted for variables like availability of resources or political instability. If you have, please show your working.
Whether there are resources or not is irrelevant. Murder is murder. Politics always exists. Don't look at small sample sizes, but look at the bigger picture, that is, globally. Globally on a per capita basis, the murder rate has gone down. That is a proven fact.
Hmm. Out of interest, you're obviously referring to the Bible here. Are you also including other societies and written records, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, or only focussing on the bits that support your case?
You claim to have demonstrated how your hypothesis has been tested, but there's no detail that I can see. To have your work accepted, you need to highlight your sources, show your methods, and explain how you kept it objective. You can't just say 'I have'.
All information is used that gives us this conclusion about the exponential progression of conscience these past 6000 years. It's undeniable.
Yes, indeed, one can say it has been proven. I prefer for you to go look yourself to see that it is so these things are true, don't trust me. I am not going to spoon feed you everything. You have to learn to see some things for yourself, that the murder rate per capita has gone down. Governments provide these statistics, so check it out! These are the sources, they provide their own methods, and because it is on a per capita basis, the greatest measurement one can use, it remains objective.
No. Outside of biological processes(I assume that is what you mean by 'nature'), there are pre-existing physical and chemical processes that are far more likely origins for biology than a supernatural source.
Don't you ask yourself what caused those physical processes, or do you just shut your mind down at that point? Surely you don't think because there is a physical sun, that you think it happened all by itself?
If they menat that history goes back forever, I disagree. However, if they meant that there has been a progression of cause-and-effect from the beginning of time, then Iwould say they are correct. However, the evidence shows that this is a finite period, around 13 billion years, so not an 'eternity'.
Regardless, none of the evidence you have presented demonstrates anytrhing about the age of the universe. You have not demonstrated a reliable way to use 'sin' to measure time.
Again, ask yourself what causes time itself? Time just not happen all by itself, for one time leads to another time so time can't create itself.
What many atheists say is time is caused by something else and that something is caused by something else. But Step 1 disproves this because the exponential progression in conscience would mean there was not an infinity of the past of cause and effects. You certainly would not still be sinning by now.
Ask yourself what caused the big bang 13.7 billion years ago. Bombs don't go off all by themselves. There is a cause.
Scientists agree the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I agree.
The fact that there is an exponential progression in conscience shows it won't take much longer before sinlessness is reached in the saved. Therefore, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because the progression indicates to use we would not still be sinning by now if that were the case.
Take a calclus course.
Troy, just because you keep saying that 'it is fact and is proven' that there has been an exponential growth in conscience, it doesn't make it so. If you, yourself, don't provide these statistics, since no-one else seems to have statistics which go back that far, then you have proved nothing.
@Wise Son
Anyone can claim the first 2, and we have only anecdotal evidence of the third.
Yet what makes it true is not only did He say it (I don't anyone that even says they are uncreated God, only Jesus said that), He proved it by remaining sinless, fulfilling 60+ prophecies, was multiply attested to His resurrection promise and did all that you could possibly expect of the uncreated if He were to enter into creation.
A living testimony documenting what he saw in seeing Jesus resurrected is not anectdotal, but a sworn testimony which was Paul's own writing, John's own writing, Matthew's own writing, Peter's own writing, Jude's own writing, and near first hand witnesses of Mark and Luke. James', brother of Jesus, own writing as well testified the same. And there may be a couple others as well, though we don't know them by name. Before he refused His brother being uncreated God. Paul tried to kill Christians before.
In fact, you can say nothing is more well documented in antiquity so if you don't accept Jesus being God, uncreated, died on the cross, resurrected and will return in Person, then you should not accept anything in history, not even that which happened this century, because for the day, the documentation for the Bible was immense of very high standards. Jesus is even more well documented by Christian and non-Christian sources than the most famous roman leaders. There are more sources for Jesus for the first 150 years after His death than was for the Roman emperor who died when Jesus died. About 4 times as many.
No, for the reasons I explained above. Physical and chemical processes are a far more likely possibility for the origin of biology than supernatural sources.
I showed your reasons were at fault.
Ask yourself what caused the physical processes, since obviously they don't happen all by themselves. They have a cause. So we must conclude the supernatural is the ultimate cause. If you want to talk about supernatural sources, there is not multiple causes, but one cause, since supernatural sources could not cause themselves. There needs be an uncreated creator.
This is not a question of faith, I accept what has been shown to be the most likely explanation, and you've presented nothing to make your faith appear a more likely explanation.
For you it is a question of faith with not evidence, because you have no evidence for your faith. The evidence shows us that the uncreated created since nothing in nature happens all by itself.
Well, clearly it's not proven. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's your personal, subjective choice. Just accept it as such. If your 4 proofs were as perfect as you say, wouldn't they be being shouted ot from every church in the world? Wouldn't they be on the news everyday, or at least on all those evangelical programmes they have, if they offered conclusive proof for one of the biggest faiths on the globe? Doesn't the fact that they aren't suggest that even your fellow Christians aren't convinced by them?
There is something wrong with merely subjective personal choice. If your subjective choice is to murder, that is wrong.
Christians don't accept blind faith, for we have objectively proven work of the 4 Step Proof for God (many don't call it this, but they say the same thing), death and resurrection on the cross. It really happened and well documented, with no reason to doubt their eyewitness testimony. You show no alternative explanation, nor has anyone else. Christians win!
Christians do shout out from every church in the world, God proved Himself.
It is not one of the biggest, but the biggest. The statistics show it.
I think you get into problems though in thinking everyone of the 2 billion souls who say they are Christian is in fact. The Bible is very clear about this that they are not all Christians. As most who say they are not are not, so too most who say they are, are not. But there would likely be less unsaved in those who say they are, than those who say they are not.
You're highly selective of what particular bits of the truth you tell, and mix bits of opinion and faith in with stuff that's supposed to be objective.
Faith and objectivey are not mutually exclusive, nor I have given mere opinion that is unbacked. If I did, you could show it, but you don't. Faith should be be faith because it is proven, so why don't you adhere to this principle?
Highly selective about what? You don't say. So why accuse so vaguely if you don't know what you are talking about?
Where should I go? You came here to spam us with your 'proofs', and expect us to change our beliefs based on them. I don't expeect or necessarily want you to change or lose your faith or beliefs, I just want to argue and discuss rationally and logically with you, which is how I, in turn, would like to be treated.
The unsaved fstdt people wanted to try to discredit God of the Bible and they posted about the Proof, so it would be reasonable to respond to show the truth of their mistaken assumptions.
Spam is posting irrelevant and inappropriate comments. That's what you are doing by finding excuses that I show to be false, so why repeat them and avoid my response? I am just responding with the truth, so don't be afraid it.
I do expect you to receive Christ into your life because you could not find any reason not to.
If you want to argue logically and rationally, then your argument falls, then you should accept the truth, that that Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
Believe me, I aspire to those in all things, which is why your spam started to irritate me.
But you haven't shown any logic or reason, so it is just self that doesn't really care for the truth. The reason you are irate is the same reason Paul and Timothy were put in jail for their proven faith in Christ, because their accusers were jealous of Paul's and Timothy's clear minds.
@James
You don't have to keep fighting the truth that God proves Himself you know.
The Bible says Jesus was uncreated Ask yourself what caused the physical processes, since obviously they don't happen all by themselves. They have a cause. So we must conclude the supernatural is the ultimate cause.
A thoroughly illgical conclusion. The physical processes are inherent in the nature of matter and energy. They are the very antithesis of 'supernatural'. They may appear that way if you don't understand them, but that's another matter.
For you it is a question of faith with not evidence, because you have no evidence for your faith.
Again, it's not faith for me. It's centuries of peer-reviewed, tested and constantly re-evaluated science.
It really happened and well documented, with no reason to doubt their eyewitness testimony.
No offense intended, but I apply the same scepticism to the accounts of followers of a charismatic, messianic cult-leader 2 thousand years ago that I would to the same claims made by the same people today. This doesn't mean I doubt the existence of Jesus, or that he was a religious and social revolutionary, or that he was killed by the Romans.
nor I have given mere opinion that is unbacked. If I did, you could show it, but you don't.
I have shown it, you just stubbornly keep saying 'no I didn't'.
@A Friend
That you exist is not something to give thanks for?
@A Friend
Yes it is true, the population was not billions of people 3000 years ago. No scholar would suggest such a thing. rest of the statement. Because you know that isn't true.
@A FriendThe reason you are confused is because you don't see how massive the population is to realize it has gone down. These sins have not increased at the rate of increase of the size of the population.
The reason you are confused is because you have not realised that the world does not end at the shores of America. Statistics for a modern and affluent Western nation are not representative of the world in general.
In short, you are just making up stuff to support your argument. Again.
Posting the same thing over and over and over again, Friend, is not useful for winning an argument. It just makes you look nuts, 'cause that's what crazy people do.
@Wise Son
You have to demonstrate that it's irrelevant.
And don't just tell us to look for the information ourselves - You have made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Show us your sources, and let us evealuate them for ourselves. Then, show us how you have linked the information (murder-->sin), so we can evaluate your methods. Otherwise, why should we accept your thesis as proven?
The number of murders per capita in any generation is a most encompassing number and is not justified because politics or any other reason. Murder is a sin and it is wrong. Period. The burden of the proof is on the Proof, and the Proof comes through by asking you where are their child sacrifices performed as much as they were thousands of years ago? Where do you find the wars in recentury centuries kill off as many people of the population as in previous centuries? You don't. Knowing this and nothing else, you know there is an exponential progression in conscience. Now if you want to verify the murder rate per capita in any particular city or province or state or country, you can go to those government web sites which will reveal it to you. It's up to you if you want to find this out for yourself. God said if you search Him out with all your heart and soul, you shall find Him. If this is your sticking point to refuse God of the Bible, then you will only find Him if you search out to find if there is evidence, either way, that the murder rate per capita has increased or decreased. Ask yourself if the murder rater has increased at the same rate as the population has inceased from 1000 BC. If you think the murder rate has increased 70x the 100 million population in 1000 BC, then where is your evidence? Most scholars don't believe we kill more people per capita now than in more barbaric times. So the burden of the proof is on you.
It was already proven murder is a sin. You will go to jail if you sin. If people in whole consider this a sin to put you into jail for murder, then it is a sin. Whether you still think murder is ok, not a sin, doesn't matter, because when you murder, you are sitting their in jail as our evidence and your testimony you have sinned as others have. So this places the burden of the proof on you and you have nothing in response.
All physical processes are caused by the transference of energy in one form or another, and they have been in effect from long before mankind, Earth, or the Sun existed.
Don't you ask yourself what caused those energy transferences, since nothing in nature happens all by itself? Therefore, the uncreated created. Just be honest with yourself if your answer is no, then you shut your mind down for the devil.
Well, evidence supports the Big Bang Theory, and before the Big Bang, there would have been no time, just as there was no space.
That there is no conclusive answer as to the cause of the Big Bang doesn't matter. We may find an answer in the future, and even if we don't, it doesn't make God a more likely solution.
There is no conclusive answer to what caused the big bang, and that is right, it doesn't matter, because whether God did it or it was caused by another natural event is not the key because we know all natural events have a cause. Since there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, since nature does not create itself, we know the uncreated created.
If there was no time before the big bang and time commences with the big bang, since time can't create itself, for it is always caused by the time before it, then we know God created both time and the big bang. This is important to know because if He created, we should find out who He is, what His qualities are, and what He wants so we may be obedient to Him. As it turns out He created us in His image, but the first man sinned, so we are all born into sin. But by God's good graces, the redemptive design is put in place through Christ to save anyone that wants salvation.
This remains unproven, and besides, unles you believe that mankind was present at the beginning of the universe, our relationship with abstract concepts like 'sin' is utterly irrelevant.
Sin is not an abstract concept. If you murder you go to jail. This is very concrete and specific. It is only abstract to you, because your conscience is so dead it doesn't realize that it is wrong to rape women, murder, steal, revile, hate and be jealous. Truly there are consequences to all these sins to show they are sins.
Man can not have existed eternally or be derived from an eternity of the past, because man still sins. Since there is an exponential progression in conscience these past 6000 years, it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. Therefore, man would not have needed to have been derived from an eternity of the past, since he still would not be sinning now if that were the case.
What does calculus have to do with this?
To appreciate that an approximation to eternity is deemed as an eternity.
In like manner the progession of our conscience is exponential, and as exponential charts go, they get steeper and steeper approximating infinity. This shows then there would not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, and thus, the only possibility is the uncreated created.
First you need to see the uncreated created, then find out who the uncreated is. Are you there yet? If not, why?
@Wise Son
You have to demonstrate that it's irrelevant.
And don't just tell us to look for the information ourselves - You have made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Show us your sources, and let us evealuate them for ourselves. Then, show us how you have linked the information (murder-->sin), so we can evaluate your methods. Otherwise, why should we accept your thesis as proven?
The number of murders per capita in any generation is a most encompassing number and is not justified because politics or any other reason. Murder is a sin and it is wrong. Period. The burden of the proof is on the Proof, and the Proof comes through by asking you where are their child sacrifices performed as much as they were thousands of years ago? Where do you find the wars in recentury centuries kill off as many people of the population as in previous centuries? You don't. Knowing this and nothing else, you know there is an exponential progression in conscience. Now if you want to verify the murder rate per capita in any particular city or province or state or country, you can go to those government web sites which will reveal it to you. It's up to you if you want to find this out for yourself. God said if you search Him out with all your heart and soul, you shall find Him. If this is your sticking point to refuse God of the Bible, then you will only find Him if you search out to find if there is evidence, either way, that the murder rate per capita has increased or decreased. Ask yourself if the murder rater has increased at the same rate as the population has inceased from 1000 BC. If you think the murder rate has increased 70x the 100 million population in 1000 BC, then where is your evidence? Most scholars don't believe we kill more people per capita now than in more barbaric times. So the burden of the proof is on you.
It was already proven murder is a sin. You will go to jail if you sin. If people at whole consider this a sin to put you into jail, then it is a sin. Whether you still think murder is ok places the burden of the proof on you.
All physical processes are caused by the transference of energy in one form or another, and they have been in effect from long before mankind, Earth, or the Sun existed.
Don't you ask yourself what caused those energy transferences, since nothing in nature happens all by itself? Therefore, the uncreated created. Just be honest with yourself if your answer is no, then you shut your mind down for the devil.
Well, evidence supports the Big Bang Theory, and before the Big Bang, there would have been no time, just as there was no space.
That there is no conclusive answer as to the cause of the Big Bang doesn't matter. We may find an answer in the future, and even if we don't, it doesn't make God a more likely solution.
There is no conclusive answer to what caused the big bang, and that is right, it doesn't matter, because whether God did it or it was caused by another natural event is not the key because we know all natural events have a cause. Since there can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, since nature does not create itself, we know the uncreated created.
If there was no time before the big bang and time commences with the big bang, since time can't create itself, for it is always caused by the time before it, then we know God created both time and the big bang. This is important to know because if He created, we should find out who He is, what His qualities are, and what He wants so we may be obedient to Him. As it turns out He created us in His image, but the first man sinned, so we are all born into sin. But by God's good graces, the redemptive design is put in place through Christ to save anyone that wants salvation.
This remains unproven, and besides, unles you believe that mankind was present at the beginning of the universe, our relationship with abstract concepts like 'sin' is utterly irrelevant.
Sin is not an abstract concept. If you murder you go to jail. This is very concrete and specific. It is only abstract to you, because your conscience is so dead it doesn't realize that it is wrong to rape women, murder, steal, revile, hate and be jealous. Truly there are consequences to all these sins to show they are sins.
Man can not have existed eternally or be derived from an eternity of the past, because man still sins. Since there is an exponential progression in conscience these past 6000 years, it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. Therefore, man would not have needed to have been derived from an eternity of the past, since he still would not be sinning now if that were the case.
What does calculus have to do with this?
To appreciate that an approximation to eternity deemed as an eternity.
In like manner the progession of our conscience is exponential, and as exponential charts go, they get steeper and steeper approximating infinity. This shows then there would not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, and thus, the only possibility is the uncreated created.
First you need to see the uncreated created, then find out who the uncreated is. Are you there yet? If not, why?
@Wise Son
A thoroughly illgical conclusion. The physical processes are inherent in the nature of matter and energy. They are the very antithesis of 'supernatural'. They may appear that way if you don't understand them, but that's another matter.
The natural and the supernatural are not 'antithesis', but they are in harmony. They are not mutually exclusive just because you say so.
So the problem remains, you don't ask what causes the first natural cause, thereby shutting your mind down. Since nothing in nature can cause itself, the only other possibility is the supernatural uncreated created. It is completely illogical to assume nature causes itself, since nothing has ever been seen to have caused itself in nature. All the evidence speaks against you for we have trillions of examples of causes, but you can't find one example of a non-cause. The odds of you being right is less than winning the biggest lottery in history.
Again, it's not faith for me. It's centuries of peer-reviewed, tested and constantly re-evaluated science.
No peer reviewed, teseted and constantly reevaluated science agrees with you, for no science would say nature happens all by itself. Therefore it remains faith for you that is blindly believed which is you just manifesting yourself against the uncreated creator.
No offense intended, but I apply the same scepticism to the accounts of followers of a charismatic, messianic cult-leader 2 thousand years ago that I would to the same claims made by the same people today. This doesn't mean I doubt the existence of Jesus, or that he was a religious and social revolutionary, or that he was killed by the Romans.
You agree Jesus lived 2000 years ago and that He died on the cross.
But you don't agree that He was resurrected, but you should apply the same principles today if He was resurrected, but you don't. The principles that would be applied today is multiple attestation and well documented. When Jesus was resurrected, it was well documented for that day better more than was expected. We have 12 different group settings recorded seeing Jesus resurrected. We have eyewitness testimonies recorded in their own writing by John, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude, Paul and possible some others though we don't know them by name. This accounts for both women seeing Him resurrected and men. Since they gathered together, Paul mentions meeting with the apostles by name on several occassions, and they all agreed in what they saw of Jesus resurrected, ate with Him, talked to Him, walked with Him and touched Him, it is clear what they are saying what they saw multiple times. The bodily resurrection of Jesus!
Now since you don't have an alternate explanation of the purpose or the event of the resurrection of Jesus, then know you bases your reviling on nothing but that old sin of indepedendency from God.
What makes Jesus unique is He said He is God uncreated, walked the walk and talked the talk. You can find nothing wrong with Him.
I have shown it, you just stubbornly keep saying 'no I didn't'.
No, I don't just say no you didn't, for as you can see I have responded each time fully. Now it is incumbent upon you to reply, but not to keep repeating yourself, but actually respond to what I said instead of misrepresenting. Try it.
@Coffee
By the way I am responding to the comment of the 4 Step Proof,which is not related to CARM because CARM is a cult like fstdt. fstdt is a cult because of its bias against Christ without having any reason for reviling Him; while CARM is a false element in Christendom. Its owner Matt Slick is not a Christian since he teaches 3 major false teachings: non-Biblical pentecostalism gibberish babble, calvinism and amillennialism. God said we shall know them by their fruit.http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm
Troy : The 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible is undisputed! I win!Anonymous : I'm Nodding off.... ZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzz
[10 years later on Fstdt.]
Troy : The 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible is perfect!
[Troy is struck by thunder and is killed instantly, then he finds himself in Heaven.]
Troy : The 4 Step Proof of the Bible is Perfect God!
God : OHH SHUT THE F**K UP NOOB! Why do you think i killed you?
[Troy is also shocked to find, that heaven is one big gay bar.]
@Demented Yenta
Why assume first God exists? It is better to reserve judgment first. Try not to overassume.
I think a better reason for you to stop is that you are always wrong. You can logically work this out knowing very little. Since you are made in God's image,
If your methodology is to work things out while knowing very little, I can understand how you can genuinely believe that you've proven your points. However, you're not, so the 'God's image' bit is meaningless.
The number of murders per capita in any generation is a most encompassing number and is not justified because politics or any other reason
So, for example, the soldiers who killed Nazis in WWII are just a sinful as someone who kills someone for their purse?
Where do you find the wars in recentury centuries kill off as many people of the population as in previous centuries?
Estimated casualties of the Napoleonic wars = 3,500,000
Estimated casualties of WWII = 55,000,000.
And again, you've presented no evidence that other sins are reducing in a similar pattern.
It's up to you if you want to find this out for yourself.
No, it's up to you, as the one putting forth the argument, to find and present the evidence that supports it.
Most scholars don't believe we kill more people per capita now than in more barbaric times. So the burden of the proof is on you
Can you provide a link for this stuff? It's easy to just say it, but you'll forgive me that I don't just take your word for it. Also, you haven't even proved that your focussing on murder stats proves anything.
You will go to jail if you sin
When was the last time someone was jailed for envy or gluttony?
Don't you ask yourself what caused those energy transferences,
Have you ever studied physics at all? Transference is quintessntial to the nature of energy; it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another by transference. Again, nothing supernatural, just the basic nature of the universe.
time can't create itself, for it is always caused by the time before it,
The time before time? Are you talking about the theory of one universe collapsing to create the Big Bang of the next universe? Or just rambling?
The Bible says Jesus was born of a virgin, so He is uncreated, since Mary is not the cause nor is a man the cause of His birth. And sine the Bible says Jesus is from everlasting, there is no gods before God,
You can't use the Bible in isolation to prove God, as the Bible only has significance if and when God is proven.
The natural and the supernatural are not 'antithesis'
Supernatural = Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
So the problem remains, you don't ask what causes the first natural cause
At this point, I can only assume that you are not reading my posts correctly.
No peer reviewed, teseted and constantly reevaluated science agrees with you, for no science would say nature happens all by itself.
Well, since that's not what I've said, care to try again?
The principles that would be applied today is multiple attestation and well documented.
Going off on a tangent, but one of the other principles would be reliability of the witnesses, and any reason they might have had to alter their attestation if events had not transpired as they claim.
for as you can see I have responded each time fully.
Almost half of all your replies consist of repeating things I've pointed out problems with from the beginning. I've replied properly, but you do push me into a certain amount of repetition by, well, repeating yourself so much.
The Bible says Jesus was born of a virgin, so He is uncreated, since Mary is not the cause nor is a man the cause of His birth. And sine the Bible says Jesus is from everlasting, there is no gods before God,
You can't use the Bible in isolation to prove God, as the Bible only has significance if and when God is proven.
The natural and the supernatural are not 'antithesis'
Supernatural = Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
So the problem remains, you don't ask what causes the first natural cause
At this point, I can only assume that you are not reading my posts correctly.
No peer reviewed, teseted and constantly reevaluated science agrees with you, for no science would say nature happens all by itself.
Well, since that's not what I've said, care to try again?
The principles that would be applied today is multiple attestation and well documented.
Going off on a tangent, but one of the other principles would be reliability of the witnesses, and any reason they might have had to alter their attestation if events had not transpired as they claim.
for as you can see I have responded each time fully.
Almost half of all your replies consist of repeating things I've pointed out problems with from the beginning. I've replied properly, but you do push me into a certain amount of repetition by, well, repeating yourself so much.
Simply put, Troy, you've told people repeatedly not to assume God does not exist. Or said properly, to assume God does exist. I simply used your own words because your logic to prove to me how evil I am is circular.
@Wise Son
So, for example, the soldiers who killed Nazis in WWII are just a sinful as someone who kills someone for their purse?
No. They are not sinning at all. They are saving the world.
Estimated casualties of the Napoleonic wars = 3,500,000
Estimated casualties of WWII = 55,000,000.
And again, you've presented no evidence that other sins are reducing in a similar pattern.
The total number of deaths due to murder in the 1800's was about 45 million, but the population was a third to a quarter less than it was in the 20th century. So you could say there was an improvement in the 20th century.
$10,000 U.S. is being offered to the first person who can overturn the perfect proof for God of the Bible , but it has not been given out because nobody has challenged it.
Have you ever studied physics at all?
The physics I study does not say something happens all by itself. There is always a cause.
Are you talking about the theory of one universe collapsing to create the Big Bang of the next universe?
No. What I am saying is the momemt that just occurred now was preceded by a previous moment in time and this is a cause and effect relationship.
This sounds like a real disrespect of the importance of motherhood. If a foetus develops to a baby in woman, and is given birth to, I count it as 'created'. I don't expect you to agree, but you'll not be able to convince me on this point, as it would be like saying 'I was created by my father, but not by my mother'.
Mary never thought she is was the cause. She knew God gave the child.
You can't use the Bible in isolation to prove God, as the Bible only has significance if and when God is proven.
The Bible is not used in isolation to prove God. Since we have proven that there is THE uncreated who created, and by comparison, Jesus said He was uncreated, then He fits the requirement.
You will go to jail if you sin
you left out the part about murder.
Supernatural = Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
You said these two are antithesis. No. They can both coexist.
At this point, I can only assume that you are not reading my posts correctly.
Make record for yourself that this is your response to when I said, you don't ask yourself what caused the big bang. This is how you shut your mind down.
Well, since that's not what I've said, care to try again?
This was your response regarding things having a cause. Then you agree all things have a cause, so that nothing in nature can cause itself; ergo, the uncreated created who is God of the Bible for none can compare to Christ.
Going off on a tangent, but one of the other principles would be reliability of the witnesses, and any reason they might have had to alter their attestation if events had not transpired as they claim.
They did not expect Jesus to be resurrected, so it was happening just as they expected, but then all of a sudden to their shock, He was resurrected, so this is what caused them to have such strong faith.
Almost half of all your replies consist of repeating things I've pointed out problems with from the beginning. I've replied properly, but you do push me into a certain amount of repetition by, well, repeating yourself so much.
You haven't pointed out any problems at all. Each time I show you how you misunderstand but you just repeat yourself to shut your mind down as you did originally and continue to.
@Christopher
@Rime
in this thread .
@A Friend
I have responded to all your responses or attempts to disprove God, so you have not disproven Him. Please respond to my responses specifically instead of merely self-declaring, "I have already proved God doesn't exist." Since you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible, it remains true. Here we have the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. If you can't isolate anything wrong with it, it proves God of the Bible.
I have isolated an incredible number of things wrong with it, therefore it proves nothing. Nowhere in the proof does it say I have to convince you or anyone else.
@Christopher
Ok... I reckon it's time we all pooled together to get Troy a hooker.
A Friend, I'm still waiting for my $10,000. I completely disproved your step 2 and the rest of your proof comes crashing down like a house of cards.
@A Friend
It was already shown that the fact remains true that nothing in nature happens all by itself, since the weight of the evidence is for everything in nature having a cause. We can find trillions of examples of causes. But we can't find any proof for something that happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon.
You mean you can't. Science has no such problem.
@A Friend
Moreover, there is an exponential progression in our conscience so it would not require an infinity of the past of cause and effects. This doubly proves the uncreated created. Murder rate per capita has decreased and no longer are child sacrifices performed except with Islamic suicide mass murderers.
Once again, my reply got stopped by spam-filters for some reason. Here's the one bit I really need to get through:
Well, Troy, since you accuse me of bearing false witness, I'll say that I apologize for calling your logic circular because I haven't looked thoroughly into the term.4 Step Perfect Proof of God " and "Four Step Perfect Proof of God " has been disproven on several discussion boards and websites.
Just because you aren't convinced, doesn't mean it's true. You do make assumptions, the biggest one being Jesus is who he said he is. Since the Catholic Church had control of most of the literacy programs (and therefore history books) over the last 2000 years, it would make sense that "most scholars" would assert that he never sinned, even though that really can't be proven.
And Wise Son, I have to hand it to your efforts. It's not just Troy who sees this, it's every visitor who manages to make it to the bottom of the list.
@David B
I have isolated an incredible number of things wrong with it, therefore it proves nothing. Nowhere in the proof does it say I have to convince you or anyone else.
Name one thing you proved wrong. Nobody has seen it yet that I know of.
In order to receive the $10,000 you will need to present it here .
Not only that, but since it is the proof God uses of Himself, and you reject Him calling His Son a liar, without reason, then it is ultimately between you and God and why you will need to go to hell, because you don't want to be forgiven.
@Rime
@A Friend
Name one thing you proved wrong. Nobody has seen it yet that I know of. (1)(2)
(1) False Dichotomy: There are innumerable ways in which someone would be unable to isolate anything wrong that would not reflect on the validity of the proof at all. For example they may only read Mandarin.
(2) False Dichotomy: There are innumerable ways in which the proof might be valid where the God of the Bible does not exist.
Step 1 - There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, so that it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved(3) . That being the case obviously there would not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects(4) . Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created(5)(6) .
(3) Unproven Assertion: There is no measure of conscience by which this claim can be demonstrated. There is no material evidence of levels of conscience for the 6000 year period in question. There is no objective definition of sin by which to evaluate our proximity to 'sinlessness'. There is no material evidence of levels of 'sin' for the 6000 years in question.
(4) Non-Sequitur, False Dichotomy: An eternity of past cause and effect is neither indicated nor disproved by the prior assertion. Even if demonstrated, an exponential growth over a period of 6000 years would not rule out cyclic, chaotic or perturbative long term trends.
(5) Non-Sequitur, False Dichotomy, Unsupported Assertion: Cause and effect has not been shown to be neither an eternal nor unbroken web, hence the assertion that this neccesitates the 'uncreated created' is unproven. Neither has it been shown that this is the only remaining possibility - i.e. cyclic or mutable time, C/E violations.
(6) Contradiction: Uncreated is the antonym of created. It is not possible to be both.
Step 2 - Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause(7) , then nature could not have caused itself(8) . Thus, the uncreated created(9) .
(7) Factual Mistake: Several quantum phenomena are known to be acausal, not merely without known cause, but without any cause consitent with local reality.
(8) False Dichotomy, Category Error, Dicto Simpliciter: That nothing in nature has a property does not exclude that property from nature. For example, nothing in nature has the properties of matter exhibited in the first milliseconds of the big bang, these properties are still entirely natural.
(9) Contradiction: See (6).
Step 3 - Don't argue against some god for we are talking about God of the Bible(10)(11) . Just stay on topic.(12) . Therefore, the uncreated created(13) .
(12) Unproven Assertion, Contradiction: Supernatural, by definition, is not bound by natural law. It has not been demonstrated that a supernatural agency cannot cause itself or other supernatural agencies, nor is it possible to do so as no demonstrable, natural law would necessarily apply to the supernatural.
(13) Contradiction: See (6).
If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true(14) . Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated(15). Can you do that?
(14) False Dichotomy: If something is true, it should not be possible (logically) to find anything wrong with it, the converse is not true. That all crows are birds does not mean that all birds are crows.
(15) False Dichotomy, Non-Sequitur: The proof is without merit, hence is rejected, and has no bearing on the question of the existence of God. Being 'created by the uncreated' is logically homologous to an 'uncreated creator ', not an 'uncreated created ' as utilised in the proof.
@Heather
@A Friend
(3) It is proven fact. For example, the number of child sacrifices per capita has gone down exponentially.
@David B.
@A Friend
(7) Just because scientists can't understand the cause of some of the most complicated things known to mankind, doesn't demand there be no cause to them. That would be arrogant to think so. Scientists don't give up and say it has no cause but they keep searching for it because there has always been a causal relationship in nature.
@A Friend
We don't have records of the number of child sacrifices that use to take place only that it was part and parcel of many nations; but today, it is illegal.
@David B.
@David B.
@A Friend
That's the thing about points made, is you claim something was not addressed, you could point it out, but you don't, because I had addressed everything in nature, nature is nature. Arguments applied to any or all things in nature are not bound to apply to nature itself. Every cell in my body is mute, I am not.
-- (11) No other solution is possible for the reasons given why Jesus trumps all other claims of the uncreated, because only Jesus enters into His creation to be a sinless perfect sacrifice to atone for sins.
Unproven assertion. There is no 'trumps' in logic, you are merely asserting Jesus is the only solution so as to exclude all others by fiat. You cannot prove that no other possible, immaginable solution exists, so you merely say it is so.
-- Nobody else does not the same, because nobody else has the love of the Lord!
Unproven assertion. You have not proven that Jesus did this either, and to be true it would depend on your proof being true. But your proof is only true if this assertion is true, which depends on your proof being true, and so on.
If everything should be created to proof God, why stopping there?, and if it´s uncreated, why is it possible that exists?. Make up your mind.
@A Friend
The proof of exponential increase in conscience is based on factual evidence that in writings about various nations that use to sacrifice their children on altars. Today that doesn't happen. You don't need to know that actual numbers. It happened then, now it doesn't. Simple.
@David B.
-- (6) Step 1 of the proof does not say God is created and uncreated.
You refer to the "uncreated created", the two terms are antonyms, logically nothing can be both.
-- (7) Just because scientists can't understand the cause of some of the most complicated things known to mankind, doesn't demand there be no cause to them. That would be arrogant to think so. Scientists don't give up and say it has no cause but they keep searching for it because there has always been a causal relationship in nature.
Scientists understand quantum phenomena to be truly random because they have experimentally verified that they are. If you were able to point out a flaw in the Bell's theorem, you would have done so.
-- (8) We are not talking about the specific aspect of the big bang being different than other causes. We are talking about whether something has a cause or not, and all things do, so therefore, nature can't cause itself, big bang can't cause itself.
Unproven assertion and a category error, nature isn't in nature, nature is nature. Arguments applied to any or all things in nature are not bound to apply to nature itself. Every cell in my body is mute, I am not.
-- (11) No other solution is possible for the reasons given why Jesus trumps all other claims of the uncreated, because only Jesus enters into His creation to be a sinless perfect sacrifice to atone for sins.
Unproven assertion. There is no 'trumps' in logic, you are merely asserting Jesus is the only solution so as to exclude all others by fiat. You cannot prove that no other possible, immaginable solution exists, so you merely say it is so.
-- Nobody else does not the same, because nobody else has the love of the Lord!
Unproven assertion. You have not proven that Jesus did this either, and to be true it would depend on your proof being true. But your proof is only true if this assertion is true, which depends on your proof being true, and so on.
(6) That God is uncreated and He created are not antonyms. Since nature can't create itself then the uncreated created. God can be uncreated and create. He is not the created, but He creates.
(7) Nothing that appears random is causeless. Bell's theorem does nothing to show otherwise. If I roll a dice it appears to be random, but based on how I threw it and how it bounces, these are the causes. No scientist believes in causelessness in any area.
(8) I didn't say nature is in nature. I said nothing in nature causes itself, for all things have a cause and effect. Whether every cell of your body is mute or not or you as a whole are mute or not, in both cases there was a cause to your cells and to you.
(11) By comparison we see Jesus trumps all other claims of the uncreated by His nature, way of being, purpose and fulfillment. Since no competing idea exists, Jesus stands solely victorious. If you could present a competing uncreated being, you would have, but you can't.
Yes, Jesus did die on the cross, He said He is God, fulfilled 62 prophecies, was multiply attested seen resurrected, performing miracles, and became the perfect atonement. All this is evidenced by 40 writers in agreement. Now compare this to anyone that might want to compete with this powerful documentation. I see no challengers, nor do you.
@Matilde
@David. B.
You do not know the actual numbers, so you can't prove the progression is exponential. That there is an exponential increase is hence an unproven assertion, as you have again admitted.
You don't need to know the actual numbers to know that exponential progression exists regarding child sacrifices which was common practice, but is not now.
Child sacrifices will not return. What a crazy world that would be.
Since the exponential progression is seen then your theory fails.
Here's an idea, A Friend... what if, instead of using your God as the Creator figure, another is substituted? Krishna, Amaterasu, Quetzalcoatl, Normal Bob Smith... all of these fit your 'proof' just as well.
@NonProphet
Bottom line remains:the uncreated created .
2) Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, therefore the uncreated created .
3) Don't try to argue against some god, but if you want to try to disprove the Proof, it is about God of the Bible who would be the uncreated who created .
4) There also can not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural for the same reason as in Step 1, so the uncreated created .
So as you can see the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible remains unchanged and unchallenged.
Flailing accusations don't count. You got to deal with it specifically! This is the same proof the Bible gives too, when God says look at the mountains and the stars to ask yourself, did you do that?
As a side note, the fact that there are different dispensations, in which we find God working differently in each one, is another clue that God is pointing to our exponential progression in conscience. No longer do we partake in animal sacrifices and you go to jail if you sacrifice your child on an altar like the heathen nations did. One study I read said there were 45 million murders in the 1800's. Since the population was about 4x as much in the 20th century there would need to be more than 180 million killings in wars. I don't think there were that many. So this is an exponential improvement in conscience. This is actually even more amazing considering we had two major world wars and weapons of mass destruction that could have killed way more than 180 million.
Why assume first God does not exist? It is better to reserver judgment first. Try not to overassume.
If you can't find anything wrong with the Proof then accept that it is true. Realize the proven fact that you were created by the uncreated. Can you do that?
If you still can't do that, know it is because you first assume God does not exist, then you try to rationalize your assumption, thus manifesting your disobedience to God, so this is why you are going to hell. You remain unforgiven for all your sins; alas, you may not even realize you are a sinner because you have chosen to shut your mind down, or if you do know you are a sinner, you don't care anyway and would rather go to hell. Someone like that is a bad person. Very sad way to live!
These fstdt forums are horrible. Most of the time they are not working, so you can't even post. here which is where I like to hang out. I will take that as a sign of your willingness to seek after the truth. Just use your same user name so I know it is you. My preference is for a higher level of conversation of non-misreading and non-overassuming.
I personally have a choice, to keep talking with those who want to go to hell who mindlessly keep repeating themselves, and wait for God to cut off the conversation when you are thrown into hell, or I can allow resurrection life to take hold and do God's will by kicking the dust from under my feet. How many times do you have to be wrong before you accept the truth? I would rather not be around to find out, because you may never give into the truth until you realize you were eternally bad and belong in hell, but it will be too late by then.
So the Lord moves me in a direction elsewhere now! As Christians we need to learn to move when God wants us to move, even though we may want to stay to help. But if help is unwanted, this explains God's move for us. It is not that the truth is unreasonable but it is unloved. I am so grateful I am one of God’s chosen people.
Well, that's too bad Troy. Thanks for the effort, but you've been just as guilty of being redundant.image
EDIT: Changed secularism to non-christian religion in point 4 since to the fundamentalist Christians it means essentially the same thing. Even if it's not true.
@A Friend
@David B.You do not know the actual numbers, so you can't prove the progression is exponential. That there is an exponential increase is hence an unproven assertion, as you have again admitted.
You don't need to know the actual numbers to know that exponential progression exists regarding child sacrifices which was common practice, but is not now.
Child sacrifices will not return. What a crazy world that would be.
Since the exponential progression is seen then your theory fails.
Actually, you do need to know the numbers to prove exponential progression. An exponential progression is one where the rate of growth is always proportional to the current value. As you know neither the rate of growth nor the size now or at any point in the past, you are making an unproven assertion.
Of course, if we're willing to widen our net to include scripture, there are a few more bits of data we can use.
image
Like I said, sinusoid. It's not looking too good for the babies of tomorrow!
According to pure logic, a non-believer writes "that this calculation [Step 1] tells us that we are moving from more to less sin and concludes that since we have not reached the state of ultimate sinlessness then it must be the case that there was not an eternity of past causes and effects. The argument is deductively valid." (Arturo from THINK the secular playground)4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible
I've come late to this whole argument, so I apologize if I'm just repeating things everyone else has said. Basically, Coadie is just giving a clumsy version of the Cosmological, or First Cause, Argument put forth by Plato about 2,500 years ago. He’s added a "proof" that the causation chain is limited in time because otherwise we would no longer have sin. This is wrong both logically and theologically. It assumes that humanity undergoes a steady progress of perfection, an assertion which has no Biblical basis, and would appear to be contradicted by Romans 1. He then basically argues that if humanity existed over an infinite period of time, human sin would be reduced to zero; ergo, humanity hasn’t existed over an infinite period of time. This beats a dead horse, since neither Christianity nor science claims humanity has existed for all eternity. He then makes the logical error of assuming that proving humanity hasn’t existed over an infinite period of time also proves that the causal chain itself can’t exist over an infinite period of time.
"It is not that Christians don't believe in evolution, but that they consider it too limited a view. It can't explain much with regard to proof for God and a relationship with His Son."
@friend: Who's Coadie? This is not a strictly cosmological argument
Yes it is. Aquinas assumed without proof that an infinite regress was impossible. You haven't changed the argument; you've simply added an invalid "proof" of one of it's premises.
If you are going to try to disprove God of the Bible don't do so by trying to disprove some god since he is not the same.
I'm not trying to disprove God. That can't be done. You've claimed that your "four-step" argument proves God. That can't be done either. The Cosmological Argument is especially weak, because all it shows is that there was a First Cause, not that the first cause was God of the Bible. Christian theologians always combine it with other arguments, usually moral or religious experience arguments. Read the famous debate between Father Copleston and Bertrand Russell.
Romans 1 agrees with this assessment.
I don't see how. What Romans 1 doesn't agree with is that that humanity is undergoing a progress toward perfection, which is a key assumption of the Four Step Proof.
So Step 1 fully eradicates any such idea.
No it doesn't, because it contains a false hidden premise: that if the causal chain has an infinite history, humanity also must have an infinite history.
By the way, Matt Slick is not the only owner of a so-called Christian forum who is unsaved, but so is the owner of christianforums.com who is Erwin Loh, as he has given control of his forum, the largest Christendom forum in the world, over to the Roman Church, which is not Christian. The Bible actually warns about this religous Rome element in Revelation 17 as the woman who sits on the beast that makes drunk the nations with th wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8).
@John
This is not a strictly cosmological argument
Yes it is. Aquinas assumed without proof that an infinite regress was impossible. You haven't changed the argument; you've simply added an invalid "proof" of one of it's premises.
An infinite regress is not possible NOT because nature can't happen all by itself (Step 2 - Aquinas), but because of Step 1 & Step 4. So the 4 Step Proof is NOT strictly cosmological for two reasons: (1) the vital matter of sin is addressed which is not cosmological; (2) the item of exponential progression in conscience is verified.
Alas, I am repeating myself, which you shut your mind down to.
Since nothing here is premised first, then you would be wrong in assuming so. If Aquinas does not address the matter of Step 1 & 4, then his method would not be complete.
If you are going to try to disprove God of the Bible don't do so by trying to disprove some god since he is not the same.
I'm not trying to disprove God. That can't be done. You've claimed that your "four-step" argument proves God. That can't be done either. The Cosmological Argument is especially weak, because all it shows is that there was a First Cause, not that the first cause was God of the Bible. Christian theologians always combine it with other arguments, usually moral or religious experience arguments. Read the famous debate between Father Copleston and Bertrand Russell.
Not only can you not disprove God, but you can actually prove God in the 4 Step Proof.
As you have discovered, this is not strictly a cosmological proof, but deals with items (1) and (2) above, so considering these facts, who then is the uncreated creator?
By comparison we know this Being to be God of the Bible, because none can compare to the Trinity and the Trinity fully proves Himself by the fullness of the Godhead bodily in Christ.
Since you can determine no one who can supersede Christ, you know for Him to be God, as He said He is God and showed it in so many ways such as fulfilling 62 prophecies. The probability of this is less than 1 in a trillion. He was multiply attested by 12 different groups of His resurrection. His teaching seems to stand far above anyone elses. The apostles verify this further by going to their martyrdom, because they said they touched, talked, walked and ate with Jesus in His bodily resurrection.
We have 40 writers over 1500 years in complete harmony and agreement as you would expect something this amazing if God were to enter into His creation-a very powerful religio-historical context!
Romans 1 agrees with this assessment.
I don't see how. What Romans 1 doesn't agree with is that that humanity is undergoing a progress toward perfection, which is a key assumption of the Four Step Proof.
Since your self-declaration is not a valid reason, it is disregarded.
What we do have in Romans 1 that agrees in an exponential progression, which you overlooked since it was already stated,
"Let me say first of all that your faith in God is becoming known throughout the world" (Rom. 1.8).
So Step 1 fully eradicates any such idea.
No it doesn't, because it contains a false hidden premise: that if the causal chain has an infinite history, humanity also must have an infinite history.
There is not this hidden premise or a premise at all. Since our existence is observed, and we come from the past, then all that is from the past that makes up who we are is the cause. It doesn't matter if humans existed in prior forms or the same form, the fact remains we are derived from the past. Just as the Bible says, our body is formed from "dust" (Gen. 2.7) over at least 13.7 billion years.
Isn't it wonderful, no matter how hard you try to exalt yourself, you still are showing the world that your creator is God of the Bible given Christ. So what else can God do, but send you to hell for calling His Son a liar? He must abide in His holiness (nature) and righteousness (way of doing things).
All these others you mention by comparison in what they teach do fail to stand up to Christ. The uniqueness of God's Proof of Himself is that nothing is first assumed, but through the Proof we are drawn to realize the uncreated created and He is God of the Bible. Actually, the 4-Step Proof requires one to assume that mankind has been around since the beginning of the universe, that God was wrong when he stated that man would never be unstained (Genesis), and that Jesus was resurrected despite no historical evidence aside from the notoriously inaccurate bible (which even has different accounts of the people present during the resurrection).
The Proof does not say evolution does not exist, only that it is a limited theory, and can't explain what happened before the first single-celled organism, so the 4 Step Proof does not talk about it. Evolution is the explanation for the progression and adaptation of life. Therefore, it has no reason to explain anything before life began.
Do you see how you argue against a position the Proof does not take? I did not argue any positions at all. I only stated that your proof is based on assumptions and fallacies, which is true.
Don't misrepresent the Proof to try to disprove it. I did not misrepresent it. I did not even try to disprove it. Again, I simply stated that it was based on intellectually dishonest grounds.
Know what you are. You are immoral,
From an objective standpoint, I am actually quite moral. I go out of my way to avoid doing anything that may directly harm another, emotionally or physically. I do not steal, kill, fight (except as defense), rape, or commit any other crimes against others. I admit that I have erred and hurt others' feelings, but I do try to make up for it through kindness.
because you call Jesus a liar when you have no reason for doing so. I never called Jesus a liar. I do not know if he existed, and if he did, I have no way of knowing that others did not distort or add to his teachings as men are wont to do. I think Christianity is a wonderful idea, in fact.
You are a non-Christian who is going to hell for all eternity and will be consciously aware of your wrong choice forever. I don't believe in your hell, and I do not believe that one must follow a certain religion or sect to be rewarded in the afterlife. I believe, to put it in Christian terms, in "salvation through deeds."
How sad for you. If it is heartfelt, your sympathy is noted, but not needed. I live a fairly peaceful and happy life, as do most of the people I associate with.
Some people just don't want forgiveness for their sins that lead to death and the second death. Nobody who believes in your Jesus actually wants to go to Hell, either. That is a strange concept you have of others, and it is sad that you dwell on it so heavily.
@NonProphet
Actually, the 4-Step Proof requires one to assume that mankind has been around since the beginning of the universe, that God was wrong when he stated that man would never be unstained (Genesis), and that Jesus was resurrected despite no historical evidence aside from the notoriously inaccurate bible (which even has different accounts of the people present during the resurrection).
No. The proof does not assume man has been around for the existence of the universe, but we know man is derived from the universe, from the stars. The Bible says so too in Gen. 2.7 that our bodies are "dust of the ground" (Gen. 2.7).
God never said man would never be unstained. Your self-declaration doesn't count. God does say we are being "perfected". Genesis does not say what you said it says, so you can't find a verse for it.
Of 45 earliest sources that are not the 66 books of the Bible, 18 of them talk about the resurrection of Jesus .
There is no inaccuracy in the Bible that you could find. I love that. Jesus met with 12 different group settings . Yes, not the same people each time. Why does that offend you?
Evolution is the explanation for the progression and adaptation of life. Therefore, it has no reason to explain anything before life began.
Good. Then we need not use it for the Proof of God since it is not equipped to determine either way.
I did not argue any positions at all. I only stated that your proof is based on assumptions and fallacies, which is true.
Since you don't identify any assumptions or fallacies then you "do argue against a position the Proof does not take."
I did not misrepresent it. I did not even try to disprove it. Again, I simply stated that it was based on intellectually dishonest grounds.
I think it is a contradiction to say you didn't try to disprove and yet say it is intellectually dishonest.
Since you show no misrepresentation and intellectualy dishonesty, then these must be your qualities, and the Proof remains unchallenged.
From an objective standpoint, I am actually quite moral. I go out of my way to avoid doing anything that may directly harm another, emotionally or physically. I do not steal, kill, fight (except as defense), rape, or commit any other crimes against others. I admit that I have erred and hurt others' feelings, but I do try to make up for it through kindness.
I don't think it is moral to call Jesus a liar without any reason for doing so, or to find no fault with the Proof for God, yet still reject your Creator. That is in fact, the greatest sin of all and why hell is needed for you.
I never called Jesus a liar. I do not know if he existed, and if he did, I have no way of knowing that others did not distort or add to his teachings as men are wont to do. I think Christianity is a wonderful idea, in fact.
To say that Jesus never existed with the multiply attested documentation of his existence historically, shows you are being disingenuous. There is not some great conspiracy. 1 in 3 billion people at least say that he existed to place some claim on him and call themselves Christians. Scholars don't even contend for what you are trying for, since they agree he existed . Therefore, one can surmise you are selfishly on your own tangent which you exalt yourself by. What pride! You even exalt yourself in claiming you are not a prophet, yet to be a prophet is a blessed thing; that is, to have the gift of prophecy in discernment of spiritual matters.
The apostles went to their death for their testimony of seeing Jesus resurrected. People don't go to their death for something like that. They really truly believed it. As you read the Bible, you find they are not lying through their teeth. There is simply too much multiple corroboration to deny it from the 66 books of God's Word, 45 other documents in antiquity which include 17 early secular commentators (9 listed here).
In fact, nothing in antiquity is more well attested to. If you can't trust this, then you can't trust any occurrence in history. By that day's standard, you would put in doubt the holocaust in WWII against the Jews like the president of Iran does.
You are evil guys.
So you separate yourself from God through your independence and darkened mind which is unable to give up your self's hold on you. The flesh owns you and your reasoning.
Jesus then says in regard to your kind of response, no amount of evidence would convince you.
I don't believe in your hell, and I do not believe that one must follow a certain religion or sect to be rewarded in the afterlife. I believe, to put it in Christian terms, in "salvation through deeds."
Your beliefs in no hell which is proven does not prevent you from escaping eternal judgment. Since by comparison Christ trumps all other claims, He stands foremost. Your deeds are wicked, for you were born into sin, so someone deprave can't save himself with his own version of works that he thinks might be good. Only through the free gift of salvation can you be saved which is nothing from your self works.
So this becomes your own self-religion and self-exalted approach as independent from God as was Adam's fall from grace.
If it is heartfelt, your sympathy is noted, but not needed. I live a fairly peaceful and happy life, as do most of the people I associate with. Nobody who believes in your Jesus actually wants to go to Hell, either. That is a strange concept you have of others, and it is sad that you dwell on it so heavily.
What a strange thing to say that no Christian wants to go to hell. I thought that would be obvious.
A peaceful life in worldy terms does not enter you into new birth for deep down inside there is still your spirit that has been stained by sinned and not yet quickened by the Holy Spirit. What Satan does is prop up your good self as much as he can for as long as he still has this for you to hold onto you, he is waiting that day when he gets you to increase your sin nature. And besides, if you are the best person in the world in the flesh and still call Jesus a liar when He said He is God, still you won't be saved, because you have decided to reject reality. The flesh can not be fixed or refined or improved. The verdict is that it must die for it is sin of the body and self of the soul, even hidden selfishness subconsciously. Wow!
Not directly do you want to go to the fiery flames of hell, but unwittingly you want to deep down inside remain separated from your Creator. Hence, the essence of hell is an eternal separation from God. This is what you want, so God says in John 3.18 you are already condemned. Since you are a sinner and sin leads to death (earlier death than otherwise) as you remain in those sins and do not want forgiveness from them by the ransom paid for you by God through His Son when He died on the cross, then you are calling Jesus a liar for He said He is God and His purpose is unparalleled. What a glorious thing of God. Think about Him going through His life when He became a man knowing He would have to die on the cross in His 30's because He wanted to change the world and give life to those who would receive Him!
It's not too late to forsake your act.
"The proof for God was already given. Since the uncreated created, then we find out only Jesus is uncreated and He trumps all other claims on being God because He said He was God, was sinless, and was resurrected. There are no other competing resurrections."
@ArchmageDB
Odin copies Christ by coming centuries later after Christ. And Odin is admittedly mythology, but the historical Jesus is never thought to be mythological, for the writers are claiming they really talked, walked, and ate with Him, and saw Him physically resurrected.
Oops, almost forgot to mention! The Norse were coterminous with Christian expansion. Also, for an example that definitely occured pre-crucifixion, try Osiris of the Egyptians, or the Sumerian goddess Inanna.
"There is no resurrections before Christ as for claim of being God. Since you couldn't find any in Mesopotamia, then you fail in this regard, or from my perspective, you unwittingly give glory to God."
@ArchmageDB
Compare that to your puny brain .
So, claiming they really talked, walked, and ate with someone makes them real? Yes, for they touched him and the multiple attestation is is strong. There is no other possibility that humans have been able to fathom. This is not a hallucination which is individually encountered and isolated event, but many many people said they had the same experience with the Lord Jesus while others were present who had the same. Even the Jews don't deny His existence, and they had sentenced him to death by handing Him over to the Romans. I suppose you could hallucinate a FSM but it would be individually experienced and not in a group setting. Where's the documentation for FSM?
An illusion? No. This happens when you seem distortions in perceptions like looking at pictures that play tricks on your eyes. But this is not possible with Christ, for he was just like you or I standing right next to another person. Where has anyone seen a FSM with others present in multiple group settings?
A delusion is when someone says they see something that is not there, when others present don't see it. This is not what happened either because Christ was seen by both Christians and non-Christians. Yet you are claiming the delusion for FSM, since nobody else can see it.
So what do you have to cling to other than you are a bad person for rejecting Christ and you belong in hell?
The question of Jesus walking on earth is not in doubt. I'm still waiting for you to come up to speed on that point and stop embarrassing yourself .
I don't know any accounts of the FSM. If there were you could cite them, and even if there was, this is no claim of it being uncreated. And besides a monster is evil, so why worship that which is evil? Doesn't that make you evil? And spaghetti? You worship spaghetti? That's goofy. Since there is no multiple attestation for your monster, it can be disregarded. Compare this to the 66 books of God's Word by 40 writers over 1500 years in complete agreement. That's powerful. So is the 12 different group settings that saw Him resurrected and many more while He was walking on earth before the cross.
Why worship spaghetti which is admittedly a physical product since all products are caused by the natural elements?
It is so easy to take apart your arguments. I'm actually embarrassed for you that you cling to such lame reasoning.
@ArchmageDB
Actually, Inanna was a Goddess. Also known as the Queen of Heaven. Furthermore, why does she have to be uncreated to ressurect? If your proof showed that, you'd be able to isolate it instead of just wanking about. Really, I understand you have a tenuous argument in the first place, but now you're just grasping at straws!
@ArchmageDB
Hey Troy, don't you have a job, or a hobby, or a life, or something?
@Michael
@Amy
God is not a mistress, so this is not a claim of being the uncreated God. Moreover God does not have a father. He is uncreated. So you can see this is quite unlike the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus to give eternal life to any that would receive Him. And, it is one-time, not an annual death and resurrection. If it is annual that indicates ineffectiveness.
Howso? It could also mean he's more devoted. You've pointed out surface differences, but nothing significant.
God is required to be uncreated according to the 4 Step Proof for God which none can find fault with.
Only required thus far by you, and by your mass of logical fallacies. You don't even know what a proof IS, since you did it wrong.
Man does not have the power to resurrect himself, nor does any god, since they would be under the power of God of the Bible. Therefore, only Jesus was resurrected because only He is God. Only He has that power. These facts remain which you overlooked previously.
Plenty of stage magicians have pulled the trick off. As for other Gods, there's only your assertion that your God would have power over them. And, despite the surface differences, the FACT remains that other Gods ressurected too, in spite of your whining. These are the facts which you overlooked previously.
That would be evil and unrighteous for God to be murdered every 12 months. A one-time perfect sacrifice is all that is needed, for the cross is an eternal cross. When Jesus died He took all the sins upon himself of the whole world.
A god sacrificing itself is a noble thing, Osiris is just manlier than Jesus, and can do it more often. That's also why he's man enough to have sex without using someone else's wife. The rest of your post is pretty much just dogmatic assertions. What are your qualifications, even, to make those claims? You have no idea how many "sacrifices" are needed, but you bullshit your way along nevertheless.
Jesus explicity refused to take any wine, so he did not take anything. Moreover, the guards were convinced he was dead on the cross so they didn't have to break his knees. As well, they stabbed his rib cage and water poured out. The heart can not keep beating for very much time at all in the position of hanging on the cross. Studies have been done a person can't keep breathing for much more than 12 minutes so you just can't fake it.
Incorrect. Crucifixion could take hours or even days to kill you. As for the water, all the more proof that it was a fake corpse.
[quoteYour gods have sex with each other. God does not have sex. He is above that and beyond your gods of sex.
...you're basically calling God impotent. Dude, you know he's gonna lightning you for that one, right?
Jesus spoke on hell in the Bible more than anyone. Since the 66 books of the Bible were all completed within the first century, there was nothing newly introduced.
Exactly. AFTER his death, when plenty of corrupt officials and others could add stuff in. Jesus himself was a nice guy, but it's fanboys like you who tarnish his good name and peaceable nature. Considering Paul's temperament and unstable personality, I'd be unsurprised if he was behind it.
The reason you are going to hell and why it is needed is because you don't want to be forgiven by God. Since you prefer to remain in sin and self of your flesh, you can not approach God because you are unclean to Him. Nor will He taint the new city in the new earth that Abraham looked towards with your presence.
Grr! God is being mean, oh NOES! Haven't you realized yet that crying "YOU'LL GO TO HELL YOU BAD MAN" when you run out of logical arguments isn't at all effective? Go back to your hugbox.
Since you are intrinsic value to God (not instrumental value as a means to an end), He can't annihilate your soul. So what else? The only thing then is God will resurrect you for judgement and hell, to keep you eternally separated from His people.
Then he's not omnipotent, if he can't annihilate my soul. Ha, pwned. Besides, if it keeps me away from you fundies, I'd CHOOSE Hell. At least the people there aren't insufferably self-righteous assholes, buddy. Save your butthurt "GO TO HELL" responses for the sheep. ^_^
@ArchmageDB
Howso? It could also mean he's more devoted. You've pointed out surface differences, but nothing significant.
A one time sacrifice is perfectly achieved so as not to have to be done again which is more devoted than a lesser one that has to always be repeated and which is abusive to let man keep murdering it physically. God is not a masochist, nor does he promote sadism.
Only required thus far by you, and by your mass of logical fallacies. You don't even know what a proof IS, since you did it wrong.
I am glad you can't find anything wrong with it though as Christians are in agreement about the proof for God. That's why we have faith.
Plenty of stage magicians have pulled the trick off. As for other Gods, there's only your assertion that your God would have power over them. And, despite the surface differences, the FACT remains that other Gods ressurected too, in spite of your whining. These are the facts which you overlooked previously.
Magicians are admittedly using magic tricks. Their pretend resurrections are not claims of being the uncreated God, so they are of no concern.
Since God of the Bible always wins the discussion by comparison of the qualities He has, then He proves Himself. Christians merely agree with the finding. If God then is the creator then of course He has power over all.
You could point to no gods that were resurrected before Christ; expectedly copycats followed, but there is always something lacking in their authenticity as you study them case by case. Christ trumps them all. And most gods are not claims of being uncreated. You overlook these facts which I am still waiting for you to address.
Moreover, the documentation for the testimony of Christ far exceeds any contenders.
If you would like to confront any specifically I would be happy to show you what is wrong with them.
A god sacrificing itself is a noble thing, Osiris is just manlier than Jesus, and can do it more often. That's also why he's man enough to have sex without using someone else's wife. The rest of your post is pretty much just dogmatic assertions. What are your qualifications, even, to make those claims? You have no idea how many "sacrifices" are needed, but you bullshit your way along nevertheless.
Killing yourself all the time is a manly thing? I think that is masochism. Hence Jesus atones for sins one-time. Only once is needed. If it is needed more than once it is admitted its ineffectiveness that it needs to be done again.
To enter into His creation to give His life to save souls that have no way of escape is a most gracious and merciful act.
Your god is a fleshly god. He has to have sex. God does not have to have sex with created beings. How goofy that would be.
I think someone who loves his sin nature and goofy ideas would think the simple truth is dogmatic as an excuse to remain in sin.
These things I have share with you are not assertions, but foundationally based on the evidence. What authority do I have? I have eternal life as given to me by Christ. Morever, my qualifications speak for themselves in my words that you can't find fault with them.
Suffice it to say your god needs to keep killing himself, but my God, God of the Bible, gave His life once-for-all. He is stronger and better than your god. Your god loses just like you do.
So you swear in anger in your reviling.
Incorrect. Crucifixion could take hours or even days to kill you. As for the water, all the more proof that it was a fake corpse.
[quoteYour gods have sex with each other. God does not have sex. He is above that and beyond your gods of sex.
...you're basically calling God impotent. Dude, you know he's gonna lightning you for that one, right?
The medical community does not agree with you. Gary R. Habermas has medical studies done in his books that shows a person can't prop himself to keep his heart beating. That position of hanging like that requires the person prop himself up. He can't keep himself up for very long on those nails. Once his knees are broken that's it. But since Jesus was not propping himself up, they knew he was dead for good.
It is medically proven as well that if someone were to stab your rib cage the area around your heart would pour out water. Your not understanding this shows you are quite clueless.
If God does not have genitals, then he is not impotent but He is spirit. Angels don't have sex, nor does God, nor will those who have resurrected bodies. Think of it as being way beyond such things. It is only needed in the body of flesh and blood.
Exactly. AFTER his death, when plenty of corrupt officials and others could add stuff in. Jesus himself was a nice guy, but it's fanboys like you who tarnish his good name and peaceable nature. Considering Paul's temperament and unstable personality, I'd be unsurprised if he was behind it.
There were no officials that added anything that we are aware of. The early church fathers of the 2nd century and late 1st century actually quoted most of the Bible in their day to show nothing had been added.
You can't write about this stuff before it happens, and since you have no evidence of corruption then don't you need something to suggest such an idea? Why the whimsical self-proclamations?
Jesus made it clear His death was to give eternal life. He didn't say "I am a nice guy, do as I say". He is cleary indicating the purpose of His death He prophesied was to atone for the sins of mankind. That's what He said. You can't discount this as something else. It does not fit into context then.
Since Paul did not show any unstability but was one of the strongest people in the faith that ever lived, again, why do you think you can accuse him without any reason from you?
I am constantly reflecting on your approach as being like the great accuser who will accuse anything and needs no reason behind anything in his accusation. You're a bad guy. No doubt about it.
You lose credibility when you are wild speculator. Skeptical scholars hold, if anyone, Paul in the higest of regards, so you are not even in alignment with the skeptical scholars.
Grr! God is being mean, oh NOES! Haven't you realized yet that crying "YOU'LL GO TO HELL YOU BAD MAN" when you run out of logical arguments isn't at all effective? Go back to your hugbox.
The logical proofs are given, the finding then is you are going to hell because you are a bad guy. You know this about yourself already, but you don't care anyway. You couldn't find anything wrong with the Proof for God.
Then he's not omnipotent, if he can't annihilate my soul. Ha, pwned. Besides, if it keeps me away from you fundies, I'd CHOOSE Hell. At least the people there aren't insufferably self-righteous assholes, buddy. Save your butthurt "GO TO HELL" responses for the sheep. ^_^
God is not going to do something against His righteousness which would be to annihilate your soul after making you in His image. His image can never be destroyed. So you will be resurrected for hell. God can't do anything against His holiness and righteousness. Never forget that. Though he annihilated pre-Adamic men, He won't annihilate any Adamic men.
See, you admit you want to be kept away from Christians by being sent to hell, just as I said. You like being a bad person. You like your sin nature. You revile Christians, God's sons and daughters.
You're a Satanic fundy.
All people going to hell, using your words, are insufferably self-righteous assholes who call Jesus a liar without reason. There is no greater sin.
We will no longer shed a tear for you when you are in hell.
(I'd quote, but I haven't determined how yet.)lot pickier about who was representing me on Earth.
2) And speaking of logic, you haven't figured out yet one basic concept - the bible is a RELIGIOUS book. It is not a historical recording. It is not "exactly how it was". Outside of your religion, the bible is a fairy tale. (And not a very good one, at that.) You can not, in any way, use ANY reference to the bible to back up your proof. Jesus said, Paul wrote....all meaningless UNTIL your proof is proven. Using it to prove your proof proves nothing but a lack of logic.
@Wolf
A Friend, All we ask of you is to provide figures (substantiated numbers) of the murder rate for every century in the past 6000 years, if as you claim there is an "exponential" drop in murders over that time then one of your claims will have a stronger foundation from which you may argue your other points, of course you will also have to provide actual substantiated evidence for those claims as well, YOU are the one making the claim so it is your job to back it up.
Hello troy the thrice cursed liar.
REPENT! Repent of our evil troy. Get down on your knees & pray for God's forgiveness of your lies or you will go to hell! Then admit your lies to us & ask our forgiveness.
God will NEVER forgive you unless you repent of your sin troy. No repentence = no forgiveness. And don't dare to say that God wouldn't send you to ell because you are born again. Don't you realise that God can raise born-agains from the very stones. Repent thou thrice cursed liar. Repent!
@ Troy
My apologies. I'd forgotten you suffer from OCD.
Troy I am not trying to hurt your feeling but you have to realise that your behaviour is NOT normal. Please get help.
With medication & psychiatric counselling you can lead a normal life & not feel 'compelled' to post here or anywhere else. Get help troy. Here's a place to start.
http://www.reachout.com.au/default.asp?ti=279
I won't help you give in to your OCD Troy.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
