4 Step Proof for God

[iNow]

1. 95 to 99.9% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (we know this because we counted them-see Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

Truth is not determined by popularity, nor is it determined by the writings of some guy in a desert more than 2,000 years ago.  You can state that specific words were written by a person, but it does not follow to assert that those words constitute proof of deity.


The above criticisms apply also to the rest of your points.

[Parture]

Agnosticism and atheism are not belief systems, nor are they worldviews, so there is no truth/untruth metric to be associated with them.

Let's deal with one point at a time. If there is no truth or untruth metric associated with agnosticism and atheism then why believe in them since they are unsubstantiated? At least Christianity has what it considers to be evidence and proofs.

Agnosticism believes something, so it is a belief system. Atheism is a belief system, for it believes something. They are world-views which can go many different ways dependent on the sect of Atheism or Agnosticism you belong to, and even if you fashion it in your own image only and you are its only follower.

[Whitney]

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Just because a scientist is smart and can apply reason to his field doesn't mean he (or she) has any knowledge on religious matters.

That said....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions.

Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”

Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God

"Literally-oriented religious Believers did not differ significantly from Mythologically-oriented Believers on measures of intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than religious Skeptics."

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg148648

[Will]

Let's deal with one point at a time. The proof does not require that sin as a concept be objective; only that we do observe it. So your assumption is faulty. Whether sin is an objective truth or not, we still observe it.

Like me, there are many people throughout history that do not accept the concept of "sin", therefore suggesting that as a whole the human race should have had a response to sin over any amount of times is faulty.

[iNow]

1. Exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm

<...>

Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

<...>

Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural

<...>

the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

Nothing but word salad and delusional ramblings, I'm afraid.  Might I suggest you look up the term "proof" using a dictionary?

[Parture]

Don't shut your mind down. Deal with Step 1.

1. Exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm.

[Whitney]

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... =showPosts

[Parture]

Truth is not determined by popularity, nor is it determined by the writings of some guy in a desert more than 2,000 years ago.  You can state that specific words were written by a person, but it does not follow to assert that those words constitute proof of deity.

Those words do testify to the proof of God, because just like we all know the earth is not flat, we also know Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and met with the Apostles who said the same. Therefore, one needs to ask the question how can this be since they weren't lying.

[iNow]

Don't shut your mind down. Deal with Step 1.

[youtube:2jztgorm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube:2jztgorm]

[Whitney]

4 topics have been merged into one since they are basically the same topic

[iNow]

Those words do testify to the proof of God, because just like we all know the earth is not flat, we also know Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and met with the Apostles who said the same.

And, as I stated previously... All you can do is demonstrate that Paul actually said (or wrote) those things.  It does not follow that his words alone are accurate, valid, or proof of deity.

[Parture]

Truth is not determined by quote mining.

But what it does shows is some of your most prominent scientists and philosphers believe in God for good reasons, so you begin to realize it is about choice, not evidence, for the evidence is there as you are unable to overturn it. And of course, there is no evidence for atheism.

Like an egg on a roof top, it enivitably drops down one side or the other.

[Parture]

Like me, there are many people throughout history that do not accept the concept of "sin", therefore suggesting that as a whole the human race should have had a response to sin over any amount of times is faulty.

You are actually contradicting yourself, for we have jails because of sin. Jails don't exist all by themselves for no reason.

[Whitney]

Since I've already had this discussion...quoted from:  http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg148507

There Are Only 4 Choices (TAO4C)

Since ~90-95% of the people of the late great planet earth have settled on four major religious or world views, logically we can conclude only these four need be examined to determine the big picture reality because if God exists He would be gracious enough to make Himself accessible:

What was this "accessible" god doing before today's major religions were nonexistent?

1) Agnosticism/atheism can't be true because the universe can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed.

God can't be true because God can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed.  Hmm..your statement seems to make just as much sense when turned around on you.

There is no moral compass

Hmm...so why aren't atheists stealing candy from babies?  There must be some reason why we choose to do good instead of doing whatever might benefit us.  Oh...that's right, morality does benefit society and evolutionary advantageous.

2) Hinduism and Buddhism are not true because you don't get nearly endless opportunity to be a chicken then come back as a human again which never effectively deals with sin; it even encourages sin. "It is appointed unto men once to die" (Heb. 9.27).

 :face_palm  Sorry, but you can't disprove Hinduism and Buddhism by quoting the Bible.   :happyrotfl

3) Islam is irrelevant because it is just some guy without any evidence six centuries later in a cave all by himself who said Jesus never died, despite the well attested historical record. If you can alter history so arbitrarily in your own mind without any evidence, you can assume anything which opens the door to sin more.

The historical evidence for Jesus the messiah is nonexistent...historical evidence for Jesus the man is shaky at best and the Christian Bible is a collection of books leaders of the time thought were true (meaning those they didn't like were left out to fit their needs).  As far as proof goes, Christians and Muslims are in the same boat.

God can't be true because God can't start up all by itself

That might be the dumbest comment I ever heard. Since the uncreated is proven it is illogical to say because God can't create Himself He must be untrue.

How does the always existing uncreated create Himself when He already always existed? Funny. This must be a slow crowd here.

See...I told you that you wouldn't like your own comment turned around on you.  Not my fault if you don't get why I wrote what you quoted....I know it can seem a bit dumb to someone who lacks a certain amount of brain power.  

[Whitney]

Like me, there are many people throughout history that do not accept the concept of "sin", therefore suggesting that as a whole the human race should have had a response to sin over any amount of times is faulty.

You are actually contradicting yourself, for we have jails because of sin. Jails don't exist all by themselves for no reason.

Sins are things religions think are bad.  Not all actions which will land you in jail are "sins" according to Christianity (your religion).  One example is the use of illegal drugs; not a sin.