Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

[Mystermenace]

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

Okay, well, none of the points are new.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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