4 Step Perfect Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach

He has posted his "proofs" all over the place. He really thought he was onto something there with his "infinite regression" theory. All it proved was how completely incapable he was of thinking beyond his very limited understanding.

By the way, I really enjoy your posts, wheels. I look forward to seeing more from you.

Originally Posted by Parture

[INDENT]4 Step Proof for God (4SPFG), 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach (4SMFA), and Observe TAO4C

Notice the non-Christian (a) shuts his mind down, (b) misreads the Bible, (c) avoids dealing with and is (d) unable to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God or the Minimal Facts Approach which, therefore, remain unchallenged. To them we say, "In the name of Jesus Christ, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved" (Acts 4.10,12). May you experience the...

I am going to skip ahead to your argument if you don't mind.

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

1. Exponential progression of conscience* (see evidence of) 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 Minimal Facts Approach).

1). Unqualified assertion fallacy, a few times. For example:

(see evidence of) 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 [URL="http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm"]

2). Word salad. Some of what you say above quite literally cannot be parsed for sensible content.

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+), beyond of reasonable doubt, of cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be all-knowing to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God.

Going to stop you right there because the fallacies are piling up here.

Again, the unqualified assertion fallacy(a.k.a. the 'bald Assertion') renders your argument invalid. Add to that your own assertion(which I agree with) that NO thing can be "uncaused" means your God(had he existed) required a cause and by your reasoning an even greater "creator". And your...implication that no one can say God does not exist without being omniscient and therefore God themselves is not only gibberish but amazingly circular in the reasoning! Your argument thus far is:

p1: God exists.

p2: the idea that God does not exist contradicts p1 so cannot be true.

c1: therefore god exists.

It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence.

Such as(keeping in mind a little thing called 'Rules of Inference')...?

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

*Sigh* This again? You cannot dismiss the eternal existence of existence itself(sans magical gods) on the very same grounds you grant exceptions to your God for kiddo. That is like saying "The rules are that my dad is strongest. If your dad proves to be stronger than my dad then my dad must have transmorphed to become your father for some reason.".

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Homes). "If all known possibilities are impossible, what we had deemed impossible must be true" (Spock on Star Trek).

Quoting fictional characters is fun and all but I fail to see how either quote helps you here?

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.

Granted but there are some major problems here:

1) Who, aside from God himself(granting his existence for the sake of argument) can say what the nature of God is? What non-transcendent being can tell us of the nature of transcendence?

2) While I may not be able to prove an undefined 'somethingness' type god does not exist, I can most certainly proved the well defined God of Christianity cannot exist. So you are choosing a rather poor deity-construct to stand behind here.

*Waits patiently for him to ask what my proof of his God's nonexistence is so I can post it followed by the inevitable faith-based denial of my argument.

(It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often.)

A precursory straw man and 'No True Scotsman' fallacy are being committed here.

I am standing on this hill, while you are over there arguing on another hill off-topic.

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)

How was the supernatural proven to exist in your first steps and how does this ambiguous "progression of conscience" evidence your conclusions here?!

since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now.

More unqualified assertions and circular reasoning?

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

Why cannot anyone be compared to Christ and how is this assertion even relevant?!

* If there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects then according to Grade 12 Calculus anything approximating into that past eternity is deemed to have existed for eternity, and effectively, therefore, all things would have already happened, e.g. our universe would have experienced far greater heat death than would exist in a universe 13.7 billion years old.

Ah...you are delving into the "Hilbert's Hotel" absurdity. The fallacy of Hilbert's Hotel is that it presumes "infinity" to be an actual quantity, like the number '4' is, when in fact it is not a quantity at all(in this context). One might as well argue that since "numbers" cannot themselves be added to "numbers" to arrive at a quantified total, "numbers" themselves cannot exist! Existence itself is not a number. it has simply always been since an 'existence of nothing' could not have logically been. However we CAN quantify periods of events within existence itself! The same way that while we cannot come up with a mathematical theorem that results in a sum of "distance", we can still quantify distances(such as how many miles are between my house and Jack in the Box) within existence itself.

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

1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, where does the evidence lead us? 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.

Bullshit sir. And not only is this conclusion not inferred by evidence, it is irrelevant to the case you are trying to make here. It is the argumentum ad populum.

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 (spent 15 days with) 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.

But there are no eyewitnesses to this alleged event. Not even within the Bible itself.

Plus the Bible itself cannot evidence the Bible itself as valid. It is like me claiming to be a "perfectly honest being" and when you ask me to prove this I tell you that a perfectly honest being cannot lie and since I am telling you I am perfectly honest, I therefore must be so.

3. People do not willingly die for something they know is a lie or a lie they made up themselves,

False. A man could, I think you will agree, tell a mad man that has a gun pointed at his child that killing him instead of the child will kill the demons while killing the child will not for one off the cuff example.
Also irrelevant since people can die for things they believe are true and still be totally wrong(i.e. the 9-11 hijackers).

nor do they willing go to their deaths as martyrs if they don't believe in what they are doing.

Again, even if this WERE true it would be irrelevant.

(Church fathers-Clement of Rome knew Peter and Polycarp was a student of John-report the eyewitnesses whom they personally knew some of, were put to death for claiming they saw Jesus resurrected, worshiping Him as God and claiming the only way to be saved was through Jesus. And this concurs with the martyrdom of James and Stephen and almost Paul recorded by Luke in Acts.) The apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and ate with the resurrected Jesus, in various group settings 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.

Again, Rules of Inference. The Bible can only be evidence that primitive men wrote a primitive holy book they believed in.

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for the claim of 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.

Not only can I offer MANY naturalistic explanations to account for the fictional events and characters within the Bible(i.e. delusion, dishonesty, pattern recognition behavior etc.), I can also point out that if you take the Qur'an as truth then it proves the Qur'an just as well as your Bible proves Christianity. the problem is that I do not grant your presuppositions.

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.

First you must explain why unanimity is necessary for truth(?).

Then you must explain how this is not contradicted by the lack of unanimity on the part of Christians(?).

If you could start with that I think we can move on from there...

There is a time to reserve judgment and a time to give into overwhelming evidence.

Correct. But the assertion that there is "overwhelming evidence" does not itself constitute overwhelming evidence.

Therefore, we are without excuse. By holding out you're exhibiting a false humility that has become your idol and point of pride of life.

You guys need to get together and decide whether we atheists are too arrogant or too humble. Someone is not getting the memo...

Let's hypothetically say Jesus is not God, but God exists.

You are also asking us to accept the groundless claim that this Jesus himself even existed as a non-divine historical figure. But I will see where you go with this...

God won't judge you for abiding in this evidence because it is so strong: a personal God who personally reveals Himself is far better than an absentee landlord. If God doesn't exist, then you have nothing to lose anyway in receiving Christ into your life, because you will cease to exist anyhow. The choice is obvious.

Pascal's Wager? Do we really need to even re-state the debunkings of this argument again? Wasn't Pascal's own church calling it an "argument for Devil-worship" enough?

In conclusion, Hell would be needed for the unsaved who send themselves there to keep them eternally separated from God's own people, not unlike how we need to keep some prisoners locked up in jail for life so they can't do harm to society.

Unqualified assertion and false analogy. Unless you are claiming that atheists can somehow hurt God and/or his followers in Heaven if we are there?

Our prayers go ...blahdy blah blah blah blah buh blah

Yeah, ok then.