Happy Atheist Forum

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (4SPFG)

1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

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:

1) Agnosticism/atheism can't be true because the universe can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed. There is no moral compass, thus, causing you to increase sin and not approach sinlessness. Morality itself can't come out of that which has no morality. Conscience and consciousness can’t be derived from that which has no conscience and consciousness. A bird house can never produce a bird.

2) Hinduism and Buddhism (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4211&postcount=1) 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).

3) Islam is irrelevant (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4227&postcount=1) 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.

4) We are left with Christianity only. And so, there is a place called Hell. Those who refuse Jesus' atonement on the cross will go to Hell. Jesus said, "For whoever is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9.40). You're against Him if you do not accept a) what Jesus did for you on the cross for God the Father to forgive all your sins, b) was resurrected and raised to the right hand of the Father, c) reveals to us He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and d) clearly said He is uncreated Creator of the universe with the Father and the Spirit.

Together, TAO4C, the 4 Step Proof for God (4SPFG (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1)), and the 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach (4SMFA (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1)), Pascal was right.

4 Step Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God (4SMFA)

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.

2. In these 3 chapters, Paul said he met with Peter, James (brother of Jesus) and John on several occasions in which the first meeting was with Peter and James within 5 years of Jesus' death on the cross, and they all agreed to the reason for being the eyewitnesses, in various group settings, to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

3. People do not go to their deaths as martyrs if they don't believe in what they are doing. (Church fathers prove the eyewitnesses were put to death for claiming they saw Jesus resurrected, for worshiping Him as God and the only way to be saved was through Jesus.) The apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and ate with the resurrected Jesus, in various group settings (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm) given in Scripture, which convinced them He is God and so became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters. Substantial evidence in Scripture testifies to this fact. The Bible is the proof and is allowed to prove something.

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for witnessing the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then it must be true they saw Jesus resurrected, for no other possibility exists in nature or human psychology that fits the data which shows He created us, He is uncreated and salvation is through Him. Since this is not something so complicated the world can't understand it like some aspects of quantum mechanics, a naturalistic explanation should be relatively easy to devise, yet none exist even after all this time to meet the data that skeptical scholars are virtually unanimous on. There is a time to reserve judgment and a time to give into overwhelming evidence. Therefore, we are without excuse.
 
Thus, Hell would be needed for the unsaved to keep them eternally separated from God's own people. Our prayers go out to those who are unwilling to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated: to come to the cross as helpless sinners to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

I can do two a day, sure.

Quote from: "Parture"1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

Quote from: "Parture"2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

You're presupposing god to demonstrate god's existence. That's a logical no-no.

Quote from: "Parture"3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

I'm afraid I can't agree to that. If you can present vague or illogical arguments that can apply to other gods from other cultures and religions, you must admit that you believe in them too. That's how it works.

Quote from: "Parture"4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

I put to you that the "conscience" is a construct which can be better explained by psychology and neurology. When put in more scientific terms, the "exponential progression of conscience" actually becomes something more clear: natural evolution.

Stephen Hawking wrote (http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/science/creation-questions/SC-creation-questions.htm),
"The actual point of creation lies outside the presently known laws of physics."

His wife is a Christian. And Stephen, in his famous book that sold over 20 million copies, more than 20 times any other scientific book, said several times he believed in God and that science is quite meaningless without God's purposes.

His most famous student who lived with him for a time was Don Page said "I am a conservative Christian."

Hawking said,
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)

Einstein and Hawking said there has to be a beginning according to General Relativity.

Hawking said, "we proved that time had a beginning".

Antony Flew, the most published and respected atheist scholar of the 20th century, renounced atheism and confessed that there is an uncreated Creator.

These prominent scientists and scholars can't deny the evidence.

Theoretical Physicist, Stephen Hawking said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)

Dr. Paul Davies (Professor of Natural Philosophy) has moved from atheism to conceding that, "The laws of physics seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." There are over 800 variables making life on another planet in the universe impossible. And he said, "[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming."

Professor of Astronomy, George Greenstein said, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or rather Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Dr. Arnold Penzias, 1978 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, said, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing...one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

And in just a few hours on the cross on our planet in our solar system in our galaxy among 200 billion galaxies in the universe, Jesus died for our sins to give us eternal life whosoever is willing to receive it.

Science agrees with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Agnostics and atheists do not agree with Einstein.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)

You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv1555%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FBell_ringer_masturbator-vi.gif&hash=992abc6c4d466b7caa68b1009768c4ffe224f76e)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages52.fotki.com%2Fv1552%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1249799985779-vi.gif&hash=0c3959ed87fae798d466ffe861ba34b215a9f0c2)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages51.fotki.com%2Fv1545%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1239121136900-vi.gif&hash=e7a2b44b7efd1134daf83c58668b7f96590de604)

Quote from: "Will"This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

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.

Let me know if you are ok with Step 1 so we can move onto Step 2.

Quote from: "Parture"1) Agnosticism/atheism can't be true

Agnosticism and atheism are not belief systems, nor are they worldviews, so there is no truth/untruth metric to be associated with them.
Assertion problem #1.

Quote from: "Parture"because the universe can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed.

It would behoove you to review cosmology, as your assertions are baseless, unsupported, and unfounded.
Assertion problem #2.

Quote from: "Parture"There is no moral compass, thus, causing you to increase sin and not approach sinlessness.

Morality is a product of being a social species who exists in troops.  Evolution selected for strong groups, and those animals which ignored the regulations and expectations of the group were ostracized and less likely to pass on their genes.  Morality came before religion.  Religion just hijacked it.  
Assertion problem #3.

Quote from: "Parture"Morality itself can't come out of that which has no morality.

Actually, yes... It can, as I just briefly explained above.
Assertion problem #4.

Quote from: "Parture"Conscience and consciousness can’t be derived from that which has no conscience and consciousness.

Yes, it can, and that's exactly what happened.  Those animals which mutated and made slightly better choices than those which did not out-reproduced and become more common across the population.  4.3 billion years is an unfathomably long time, and across those eons the slow selection resulted in the conscious mind.  The idea that some magic sky pixie just shat it all into existence is the weakest suggestion of all.
Assertion problem #5.

Quote from: "Parture"A bird house can never produce a bird.

Bird houses don't engage in coitus, they do not share dna, and they are not biological organisms.
Assertion problem #6.

Quote from: "Parture"blah blah blah

Since there were at least six assertion problems in your very first point, I'm choosing to ignore the other three which are laden with more of the same.

Quote from: "Parture"Pascal was right.

Not quite.  Pascal's wager works with all gods.  "Maybe Thor exists, it's better to worship him just to be safe."  It is also counter to decision theory, specifically the requirement of expected utility.  Expected utility is incompatible with infinite utility values.

The wager only has merit if it is useful, and since it can apply to an infinity of topics and an infinity of mythologies, it's use is actually null.  However, even if we allow infinite utility values, the argument of the wager is invalid the moment we allow mixed strategies (the moment we concede that there is more than one way to find gods acceptance and be admitted to heaven).


Look here, go find some education, become a better person --> http://philpapers.org/browse/pascals-wager (http://philpapers.org/browse/pascals-wager)

Parture isn't exactly a spammer but has been put in isolation on Atheist Think Tank for creating too many threads.  I have Isolated him to the Religion section and will take further action if necessary.  Since I have already spoken with him about it being wrong to post this many threads on ATT, I am giving him strike 1 now and will not hesitate to move quickly through the strikes process.  It is Parture's responsibility to read the forum rules and comply with them from this point on.

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (4SPFG)

1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg148505 (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=7648.msg148505#msg148505)

Truth is not determined by quote mining.

Parture, you can no longer create new threads.

Quote from: "Parture"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.

Quote from: "iNow"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

QuoteArgument 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 (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

QuoteIntelligent 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

QuoteIn 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 (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=7651.msg148648#msg148648)

Quote from: "Parture"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.

Quote from: "Parture"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?

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.

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... =showPosts (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?action=profile;u=778;sa=showPosts)

Quote from: "iNow"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.

Quote from: "Parture"Don't shut your mind down. Deal with Step 1.

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

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

Quote from: "Parture"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.

Quote from: "iNow"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.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "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.

Since I've already had this discussion...quoted from:  http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg148507 (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=7649.msg148507#msg148507)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Parture"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?

Quote1) 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.

QuoteThere 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.

Quote2) 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

Quote3) 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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Whitney"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.  

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "iNow"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

Nor is truth determined by authority or popularity.  Further, if you seriously think that Einstein's god is the same as the one for whom you are here arguing, you are sorely mistaken.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Einstein and Maxwell and Faraday believed that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.  Their belief alone is not enough to make the subject of their belief extant.

Quote from: "iNow"Nor is truth determined by authority or popularity.  Further, if you seriously think that Einstein's god is the same as the one for whom you are here arguing, you are sorely mistaken.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Einstein and Maxwell and Faraday believed that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.  Their belief alone is not enough to make the subject of their belief extant.

Again, most scientists think the earth is not flat, just like most scholars agree Paul truly believed he saw Jesus and met with the Apostles who said the same. Paul said he spent two weeks with Peter and James in his first meeting with them when he went on a fact finding mission in Jerusalem after spending 3 years in Arabia.

The point is they believe there is an Intelligent Designer. Before you can talk about who is God, you must first accept God exists.

We can be confident that God of the Bible is better than a Pink Unicorn and leprechauns as being God since the latter make no such claims, so why attribute to them being God?

So much censorship.

Decided to move the quotes topic into this topic as well since it is already becoming the same topic as the others.

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Whitney"4 topics have been merged into one since they are basically the same topic

Actually Witney, you are lying. I posted 4 topics in which you didn't do any merging at all! Quotes of scientists was left as one thread and the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God was another thread. But you completely annihilated the two other posts: 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach and the There Are Only 4 Choices. Here they are again. Try to not be so dishonest. That's asking alot I know. Hopefully people can get a look at what you are trying to hide from their eyes.

Strike 2...learn how to read.

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg148507 (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=7649.msg148507#msg148507)  all of those topics are in this thread, and now you get to have all of the topics you created in this thread since I just merged the other one.  Even if I had originally only merged 3 topics, that wouldn't mean I was lying, just that I miscounted.

Btw, you should read the forum rules so you know what happens at strike 3.

Quote from: "Whitney"Decided to move the quotes topic into this topic as well since it is already becoming the same topic as the others.

They are 4 different topics. So much censorship. Plus I can only reply to this thread and not allowed to post in any other threads? Understand this is how the world treats Christians, but realize you are going to Hell, because you are not saved. You can see how your false fruit and behaviors flow from your false beliefs.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Whitney"4 topics have been merged into one since they are basically the same topic

Actually Witney, you are lying. I posted 4 topics in which you didn't do any merging at all! Quotes of scientists was left as one thread and the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God was another thread. But you completely annihilated the two other posts: 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach and the There Are Only 4 Choices. Here they are again. Try to not be so dishonest. That's asking alot I know. Hopefully people can get a look at what you are trying to hide from their eyes.

Strike 2...learn how to read..

Actually you made this change after I posted, so you are being unethical. At the time I posted this what I said was true, until you did a bait and switch.

Quote from: "Parture"Again, most scientists think the earth is not flat,

This is not about belief.  They accept that fact based on the evidence.  You are equivocating by suggesting that belief due to evidence is somehow the same as belief without evidence.

Quote from: "Parture"just like most scholars agree Paul truly believed he saw Jesus and met with the Apostles who said the same. Paul said he spent two weeks with Peter and James in his first meeting with them when he went on a fact finding mission in Jerusalem after spending 3 years in Arabia.

And, as I've now told you twice already, all that shows is that some guy named Paul believed those things, not that god exists.

Quote from: "Parture"The point is they believe there is an Intelligent Designer. Before you can talk about who is God, you must first accept God exists.

Erm, no.  Epic fail.

Quote from: "Parture"We can be confident that God of the Bible is better than a Pink Unicorn and leprechauns as being God since the latter make no such claims, so why attribute to them being God?

But, since neither is likely to exist, it's like debating whether 2+2 = 7 is more accurate than the statement "squares have three sides."  You should let the evidence inform your belief, not let your belief dictate which evidence you accept.


Also, just a quick nod to Whitney for all of your action and for keeping the threads tight and together.  Thanks for all of your efforts.

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Whitney"Decided to move the quotes topic into this topic as well since it is already becoming the same topic as the others.

They are 4 different topics. So much censorship. Plus I can only reply to this thread and not allowed to post in any other threads? Understand this is how the world treats Christians, but realize you are going to Hell, because you are not saved. You can see how your false fruit and behaviors flow from your false beliefs.

You are the only Christian on this forum with those restrictions because you are the only one who can't be civil.

btw, it's not unethical to miscount.

I'm getting dizzy by all the moving posts around and merging posts you said you merged but you didn't but then when I held you accountable you did a bait and switch. Crazy stuff. Plus, I can't post in other threads and am limited to just this one? What's next? I am comforted in the fact that I am a child of God and thankful to God that you are going to Hell just like we don't let criminals out of jail for life, otherwise they could do harm to God's people.

Quote from: "Whitney"You are the only Christian on this forum with those restrictions because you are the only one who can't be civil.

Since I have been civil, you are not being civil, you couldn't show otherwise and I double people believe you that I am the only Christian you have ever censored, I think you are embarrassing yourself. Or at least, if you don't have a conscience to be embarrassed, I am embarrassed for you.

My, how hateful religion makes people.  Just because we have different thoughts than you, you presume that we are all going to be eternally tormented and made to suffer.  How arrogant.  How petty.  How lacking in basic human decency.

Quote from: "Parture"I'm getting dizzy by all the moving posts around and merging posts you said you merged but you didn't but then when I held you accountable you did a bait and switch. Crazy stuff. Plus I can't post in other threads and am limited to just this one? What's next? I am comforted in the fact that I am a child of God and thankful to God that you are going to Hell just like we don't let criminals out of jail for life.

You can post in any threads in the religion section as long as you abide by the forum rules.  You cannot create any new threads because you can't handle the privilege.

All I have done is merge all of your posts into one because they are about the same topic....if you don't like that, go bother another forum.

Quote from: "Parture"2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists

that does not follow

Quoteand obviously, you are not God

Prove I'm not

Quote. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ

are you even trying?

Quote from: "Parture"I'm getting dizzy by all the moving posts around and merging posts you said you merged but you didn't but then when I held you accountable you did a bait and switch. Crazy stuff. Plus, I can't post in other threads and am limited to just this one? What's next? I am comforted in the fact that I am a child of God and thankful to God that you are going to Hell just like we don't let criminals out of jail for life, otherwise they could do harm to God's people.

What is next is you need to read the forum rules and agree to abide by them. Then actually do so. Very simple. Thanks.

Quote from: "Parture"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:

1) Agnosticism/atheism can't be true because the universe can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed. There is no moral compass, thus, causing you to increase sin and not approach sinlessness. Morality itself can't come out of that which has no morality. Conscience and consciousness can’t be derived from that which has no conscience and consciousness. A bird house can never produce a bird.

2) Hinduism and Buddhism (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4211&postcount=1) 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).

3) Islam is irrelevant (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4227&postcount=1) 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.

4) We are left with Christianity only. And so, there is a place called Hell. Those who refuse Jesus' atonement on the cross will go to Hell. Jesus said, "For whoever is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9.40). You're against Him if you do not accept a) what Jesus did for you on the cross for God the Father to forgive all your sins, b) was resurrected and raised to the right hand of the Father, c) reveals to us He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and d) clearly said He is uncreated Creator of the universe with the Father and the Spirit.

Together, TAO4C, the 4 Step Proof for God (4SPFG (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1)), and the 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach (4SMFA (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1)), Pascal was right.

...

 :shake:  roflol  

Quote from: "Whitney"Censorship would be you not being allowed to post at all....would you prefer that I ban you instead of just taking away your ability to post all over the place? The reason you are in the place you are in now are due to your attitude towards me and others on the ATT forum.

Banning is wrong in this case just as almost complete censorhship. The reason you are doing this is not because of me for I have spoken the truth and started some good discussions, but because you are living a lie and need to shut your mind down and others for your forums. Crazy.

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Whitney"You are the only Christian on this forum with those restrictions because you are the only one who can't be civil.

Since I have been civil, you are not being civil, you couldn't show otherwise and I double people believe you that I am the only Christian you have ever censored, I think you are embarrassing yourself. Or at least, if you don't have a conscience to be embarrassed, I am embarrassed for you.

I haven't censored you, you are allowed to post.  This is a private forum, I don't have to allow you to post.  Of course some Christians have been banned from here, atheists too.  You are the only one to get the specific restrictions I just gave you, I had to create a special group just for you to do it.

Now, stop acting like you are persecuted and discuss your views in a civil manner.  If you can't stop with the name calling right now you will be banned.

Creating too many preachy threads the moment you join is bad form. How would you feel if you had a Christian forum and I showed up one day and created a half a dozen threads almost immediately all clearly accusatory? How would you feel if I didn't simply take the time to introduce myself and maybe join in a few threads just to see how the community likes to operate?

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

We don't jail people because of "sin". Have you ever seen anyone charged with taking the lord's name in vein or not observing the sabbath? We have laws, which are generally agreed upon social morals and ethics as a part of the social contract. The genesis of these morals and ethics isn't god or gods, but is rather the slow development of human interaction and cooperation in order to survive more effectively.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Parture"I'm getting dizzy by all the moving posts around and merging posts you said you merged but you didn't but then when I held you accountable you did a bait and switch. Crazy stuff. Plus, I can't post in other threads and am limited to just this one? What's next? I am comforted in the fact that I am a child of God and thankful to God that you are going to Hell just like we don't let criminals out of jail for life, otherwise they could do harm to God's people.

What is next is you need to read the forum rules and agree to abide by them. Then actually do so. Very simple. Thanks.

:devil:

Par, if you want to question a Mod's action, PM< the mod or admin. At most forums, you'd be banned for arguing with a mod on the boards.

No, you have still yet to prove that I'm not god or address any of the other points made by other posters

Quote from: "Whitney"I haven't censored you, you are allowed to post.  This is a private forum, I don't have to allow you to post. Of course some Christians have been banned from here, atheists too.  You are the only one to get the specific restrictions I just gave you, I had to create a special group just for you to do it. Now, stop acting like you are persecuted and discuss your views in a civil manner.  If you can't stop with the name calling right now you will be banned. The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site. This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=49075#p49075 . warning for what you posted before editing your own post

You are censoring for you only allow the blacks to live in a certain area you are censoring. Just because you live in a white neighborhood doesn't give you a right to cordon off the Jews. Your neighborhood is not private. Now you change your story and admit you censor other Christians too when you said you never did before, but I am a special project of your obsession. The reason I am your special project is because of the truth and proof given which you are as yet willing to deal with. Everything you say is wrong. Try to post without lying or being unethical just once. When you cut off the blacks and the Jews and then accuse them of feeling persecuted, do you realize how ugly you look and how evil you are? Nobody is name calling , so stop thinking you are being persecuted because you are going to Hell for calling Jesus a liar. You send yourself there. It's your own fault. You gave a warning but don't say for what? Can't you see how unethical that is? I am warned but for what? Some alleged editing? You are just being sneaky. Shame on you. Nobody can check your bizarre accusation. You can't even remember what it is you are accusing me. Weird. Try to be more civil and less prejudice.

Quote from: "Parture"

Quote from: "Whitney"I haven't censored you, you are allowed to post.  This is a private forum, I don't have to allow you to post. Of course some Christians have been banned from here, atheists too.  You are the only one to get the specific restrictions I just gave you, I had to create a special group just for you to do it. Now, stop acting like you are persecuted and discuss your views in a civil manner.  If you can't stop with the name calling right now you will be banned. The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site. This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=49075#p49075 . warning for what you posted before editing your own post

You are censoring for you only allow the blacks to live in a certain area you are censoring. Just because you live in a white neighborhood doesn't give you a right to cordon off the Jews. Your neighborhood is not private. Now you change your story and admit you censor other Christians too when you said you never did before, but I am a special project of your obsession. The reason I am your special project is because of the truth and proof given which you are as yet willing to deal with. Everything you say is wrong. Try to post without lying or being unethical just once. When you cut off the blacks and the Jews and then accuse them of feeling persecuted, do you realize how ugly you look and how evil you are? Nobody is name calling , so stop thinking you are being persecuted because you are going to Hell for calling Jesus a liar. You send yourself there. It's your own fault. You gave a warning but don't say for what? Can't you see how unethical that is? I am warned but for what? Some alleged editing? You are just being sneaky. Shame on you. Nobody can check your bizarre accusation. You can't even remember what it is you are accusing me. Weird. Try to be more civil and less prejudice.

B'bye.

Quote from: "Parture"I am comforted in the fact that I am a child of God and thankful to God that you are going to Hell ...

Wow. I grew up around Christians, and still know many, and I'm pretty sure that most of them frown upon this sort of attitude. I thought you weren't supposed to wish such a fate any person, and I'm pretty sure I remember a verse in the Bible that more or less says this. Doesn't your God judge the intentions of the heart, aren't you supposed to feel bad for the damned, not comforted? I know there is a verse that says that God does not wish for anyone to go to hell, so why would your God condone your pleasure in such a thing.

Parture,if there is a superior, loving omniscient Creator, I highly doubt it/he/she would consider you its "child". You would barely qualify as afterbirth. The fact that you would revel in your "knowledge" that another human being will suffer for eternity is disgusting. I've read a lot of comments that were in bad taste on this forum, but this one tops them all. Pure evil.

Hey, be nice, guys.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frydia.net%2Fshaz%2Fstuff%2Fjournal%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=29171bad82ac7aa4e55213709f70f7a74a45d166)

Quoteyou are going to Hell for calling Jesus a liar.

You are going to Hell for calling Muhammad a liar.

Wow, what a douchebag...glad I missed that whole thing....

Quote from: "Squid"Wow, what a douchebag...glad I missed that whole thing....

I was just about to say the same thing. Dooouuuuuuuuuuche.

More than likely this was atheist going out to try and make Christians look bad, I think. They succeeded, better than we ever could.

ATT found his you tube channel if you are in the mood for a headache:  http://www.youtube.com/user/Parture (http://www.youtube.com/user/Parture)

He's from Canada... I always thought Canadians were smarter than that.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"He's from Canada... I always thought Canadians were smarter than that.  

Unless he's a really bored atheist...I think the videos show that he is not someone pretending to be a Christian.  Too bad, I kinda liked that explanation better.

Wow, I guess you have another one for the "trolls" thread. He even came back and was banned again. I missed the whole thing but I read all of this, now combined, thread of his. the closeist discription I have would be someone crashing a peace rally punching 4 random people in the face and geting restrained for it, then screaming about being persecuted because people won't let him punch anymore (with a whole latta crazy thrown in).

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages52.fotki.com%2Fv1552%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1249799985779-vi.gif&hash=0c3959ed87fae798d466ffe861ba34b215a9f0c2)

The ABC logo moves away and back.

Quote from: "Ninteen45"The ABC logo moves away and back.

Hah, I didn't notice that. Good eye.

Quote from: "Parture"So much censorship.

So much crazy.

You want censorship?  Go to WA; half of LoR is banned from there :lol:

Quote from: "Parture"4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (4SPFG)

1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

From Link

QuoteIf there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had nearly an eternity to be perfected without sin (along the exponential progression of conscience which we observe), but since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. And thus, we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ.

This is nonsense. Sins and gods don't exist. Your first point assumes that sins exist. Sin doesn't exist unless gods exist to define them, yet you suggest that because we still commit sins defined by an unproven God, there must be a God for us to commit sins against.

Prove that sins exist.

Quote2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

This logic has an inherent flaw. You say that gods could have existed for eternities uncreated, but the universe could not have been. Why is God given the privilege of being causeless, but the universe refused? I believe with certainty that the Universe has always existed (Read: Solid State Theory).

Quote3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

The Christian storyline, when looked at as a whole, is not only arguably flawed. It is completely stupid. This step also does not suggest gods exists, it just suggest that if God did exist, it might not be what is exactly defined by the Bible.

Quote4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

Steps 1 and 2 never proved anything. Sin has still not be proven. On top of no proof of God, there is still no proof that any God who did exist would in fact be the Christian God.

Please logically prove to me that Sin exists or that sin has any relevance to the existence of God.

Umm ... Ellainix you do realize that this particular troll was banned and would be unable to answer your questions right?  By the way welcome to the forum ^_^ you should introduce yourself in the Introduction section.  I'd be interested in understanding more of Buddhism.  I know some basics of Buddhism what I learned in my Philosophy of Religion class in College like the 4 noble truths and such but i'm sure it would be more interesting learning your personal view points.

Ok then. I might do that later. Does anyone else want to argue with me?

I love to argue but I can't argue in favor of stupid, sorry.

I'm good at arguing.


YOU NEVER CLEAN THE HOUSE YOU LAZY BUM!


Your defence?

, there is no defense because it's true. I'm just a lazy stoner, you can't expect me to clean much. XD

Damn. I missed another crazy troll.

I really should read the religion forum more often.
Anyone up for some vodka?  

Quote from: "Ellainix"Does anyone else want to argue with me?

Why the hell not.

Quote from: "Ellainix"This logic has an inherent flaw. You say that gods could have existed for eternities uncreated, but the universe could not have been. Why is God given the privilege of being causeless, but the universe refused?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the first mover argument can answer that. The argument does not say that everything needs a cause, but that everything in motion needs a cause or that everything dependent needs a cause.

QuoteI believe with certainty that the Universe has always existed (Read: Solid State Theory).

Hahahahahaha  :(

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "Ellainix"Does anyone else want to argue with me?

Why the hell not.

Quote from: "Ellainix"This logic has an inherent flaw. You say that gods could have existed for eternities uncreated, but the universe could not have been. Why is God given the privilege of being causeless, but the universe refused?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the first mover argument can answer that. The argument does not say that everything needs a cause, but that everything in motion needs a cause or that everything dependent needs a cause.

What suggests that the universe is dependent and needs a cause? The hypothetical Big Bang could have been caused by nothing more than the theoretical "Big Crunch".

Quote

QuoteI believe with certainty that the Universe has always existed (Read: Solid State Theory).

Hahahahahaha  :(

Lol wow. Pretty dumb on my part. What I meant by Solid State did not include that.

Quote from: "Ellainix"What suggests that the universe is dependent and needs a cause? The hypothetical Big Bang could have been caused by nothing more than the theoretical "Big Crunch".

Don't look at me. That's how apologetics define the universe, yes.

Also, current evidence has shown that the universe is expanding too fast for there to be a big crunch. I seriously doubt there will be a big crunch. Why not just go with a multiverse theory? It makes alot more sense.

Yeah, haha, I had a great time, I'll talk to ya later hunny.

To Parture

  Boy are you delusional while I believe that God or Gods do exist, the existence of the Christian Bible God is invalid with a resounding Invalid.  The Christian Bible has been and is proven without a doubt to contain verified lies and as such cannot be considered a divinely written book nor can it be considered the infallible truth of an infallible God.  The Christian bible has been proven beyond doubt to be man written and not God written.