Do not give me infractions to stifle discussions for among other things spelling mistakes, and being discourteous- I am frequently telling you that you will go to Hell?

If our discussion is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. Don't do it through infractions.

1. Don't be a false accuser!For example, accusing people of copying and pasting or plagiarizing on discussion forums as an excuse to avoid the issue is utterly vain and shallow.

3. Show extra care.

4. No doubletalk. Don't contradict yourself.

5. Overassuming.

6. Respond specifically. When discussing with others, respond directly, specifically and courteously,repetitive self-declarations expose the weakness of an argument in trying to deflect and circumvent the issue

7. Stop being antiApostle.

8. Repent before rejoining or posting again

9. No frivolousness

10. Be cordial.

To me the words supernatural and magic are equivalent - or as you would put it the supernatural is "thinly veiled" magic - as both are explanations that claim to be other than physical explanations.

How does the first replicating cell come into being when there has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe since the big bang?
This is a fairly good summary of how this argument is used incorrectly
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
My point again is obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" as evidenced by the fact that cells exist. Or as you might say
since there are trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence....Complex chemistry does arise from natural causes.
I myself do not know the specifics of how, but it's worth learning.

It is also illogical to assume if there was one last thing that man didn't know to hold out for it possibly being proof the universe happened all by itself or always existed, because that goes against all odds. It's like you are the worst gambler every known to man.
I haven't laid down my chips on a number - and if i did I'd make sure the number was in the game.

The universe can't account for itself and we know it couldn't have always existed, because of heat death and the exponential progression of conscience.
The universe doesn't need to "account for itself", you think it couldn't have always existed - because of "heat death" isn't that meant to be a possible end through entropy - what if there was a mechanism by which it was reversed that you're not aware of? the exponential progression of conscience is a silly idea unrelated physics.

you are still on your way to Hell.
As you have seen, I have responded to all your attempts. Each one has failed....the same hostility and independency Adam had at the fall.
Your responses and dismissals have been flawed - just because you dismiss them does not make my observations false.

people strong reason to believe you are going to Hell.
Everything you have said has no merit whatsoever. I am only abiding in the evidence and your inability to disprove the proof for God an the resurrection of Jesus.
The things i have said have at least as much merit as your pronouncements. I shown you reasons to doubt the proof and resurrection- whether you choose to abide by it is immaterial to the truth.

Yes, you should trust in the written record they believed they saw Jesus resurrected
If it was proof you would not require trust.

The proof I have given you does not depend on assuming God exists first.
It requires you to believe in resurrection - which you justify through God.
You supposedly prove eternity - by talking about morals - which you believe exist because of God.

The resurrection of Jesus wasn't claimed to happen all by itself, but Jesus did it, for He is God.
can you see the circle reasoning above?

There is nothing to indicate the Scriptures are just a story book, as these were real people with real lives.
Is it not a story, in a book? Paul existed - I agreed
[
QUOTE]
A stolen body doesn't account for the resurrection appearances or the guards protecting the tomb.[/QUOTE]

And your basing this trusting testimony?

There is no known naturalistic law that allows for people to rise from clinical death
Yes there is - it's called CPR : )

We are not claiming the resurrection is true because they truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Rather, we are claiming the resurrection is true because you can find no naturalistic explanation that fits the data
The data is something other than people supposedly seeing it, or believing it on hearsay?
Good, the resurrection isn't true because it didn't happen - that's the only plausible natural explanation.


What makes you think you would recognize Him if He came?
Well I imagine if you were God you would think of something convincing, a big flying bearded giant with magic tricks, that knows everything - might be a good start for convincing people.

Cause and effect are shown in trillions of causes and effects. If sin was not real then there would be no need for jails. Sin is decreasing with time as we observe the exponential progression of conscience. It is an observable phenomenon. Crime rate and atrocities per capita continue to go down. The convergence is approximating near sinlessness if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as we see how rapidly the exponential progression of conscience has been moving the past six millennia.
And after your "heat death" there will be zero sins therefore proving your theory. How sinful was the universe when humans didn't exist?

True, humans have not existed for eternity
That graph doesn't seem exponential anymore does it?

Cycles have the attribute of happening out of nothing
What does "progression of conscience" happen out of, what causes it do you think?

The graph (picture not shown) spans 6000 years since the first God-conscious man. That's all the data we have; we have to go with what we got.
Hang on did you just say GOD is in Step 1 of the Proof.....

We don't care about the mechanism
Well obviously if the mechanism is also God, that's a fairly large logical flaw - one I doubt even you could dismiss....don't pretend you don't know why.

Maybe you can think of another way of justifying why the universe isn't eternal - but the Proof would remain flawed.


Preponderance of evidence is overwhelming everything has a cause.
Lots of things have causes, therefore everything has a cause - No.

Is there a preponderance of evidence for resurrection or "an uncreated creator" - No.
What's your evidence that this creator wasn't created "supernaturally" - besides stating it's impossible. - Nothing.

Step 1 it remains flawed. Step 2 remains illogical.


Since no other alternative is even fathomable
I can "fathom" alternatives - you should be able to as well.

humankind across all races and ages worshiped what they called God
No, and even if they did everyone believing something does not make it true. Like Christians believing the earth the center of the universe.
To hold out for something else is silly. It's like saying you have to be God to know if God exists. You make it impossible to prove God exists with your approach. How is that coming to God with an honest heart?
Something else - like the truth? or being honest enough to admit when we don't know everything.

It is not an approach, you can call it arrogant or pompous but you have not once told me why it's untrue, yet you agree it makes proof of God impossible - which makes you an agnostic.

How is that coming to God with an honest heart?
It's not about coming to God - it's just about being honest.

Logic dictates if the natural can't be the cause it must be the supernatural. There are only 2 possibilities: natural or supernatural.
And so one would tend to assume there is a facet of nature that is unknown, or not understood - not outside of all physical things - a ridiculous, meaningless, illogical assumption.

No alternative exists.
There are some alternative explanations even so, our knowledge and objective reality are separate - I think you will agree with this point - so even the absence of an alternative explanation - does not rule out the possibility of one.

The proof is the natural can't cause itself and Jesus can't resurrect naturally. By you forever being wrong is not breaking the deal, since the deal will be fulfilled by you going to Hell.
Maybe you are going to my version of Hell - I call it irrationality - it makes you a prisoner in your own mind.

"you can't disprove the evidences supplied."
Can, have, and will continue too. I still don't know how you can consider it an impossibilty if you are being reasonable.



Textual criticism makes it a certainty we have the right original documents. No alleged contradictions have not been answered by Christian scholars. 99.5% of all Bibles are the same. That can hardly be construed as wide difference. Current changes to update today's English or other language pose no problems. Apocrypha, adding books to the Bible, can be shown to not fit in with the 66 books.
One of many lists you can find simply by searching for "biblical contradictions"
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html

How do Christian scholars answer such contradictions?
It may not be a wide difference - but it is a difference - how do you choose which one is right?
Who chooses which books are canonical?

Abiogenesis is proven undoable naturalistically
/mathematically
No, basic chemical "life" has been created in labs.

Whoever doesn't want this gets to have everlasting conscious awareness in Hell, such as yourself after you are resurrected. In layman's terms, you're a bad guy in God's eyes, for you reject the greatest love ever known to man, and God is not far from any of our hearts, so you are without excuse.
Only if you're correct, there is no reason to believe you are. so your self aggrandising statements don't bother me.

[QUOTEIndeed the universe eternally exists in the future, but not the past.QUOTE]

Prove it. Actually don't it's irrelevant to our discussion.

The uncreated is proven because nature can't cause itself.
Prove It - You have not, and cannot.

we come to the realization God exists by the proof of nature.
Sure you did.....I believe you.....


But you can't show it is not persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical, and that is why it is persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical.
My ability or inability to communicate does not change what is true - I have shown it is illogical, and so unpersuasive. It also does not encompass proof of the premises assumed - or you would not have required further explanation - you would simply refer back to the proof.


The evidence is given, so you have no excuse for being an atheist or agnostic.... All you have then is Hell.
Your "evidence" isn't evidence - that is my excuse, and quiet a good one.

Your continued insistence that your belief is rational, rather than based on blind faith - the type where you deny it is faith? is aptly explained by yourself

Your faith is certainly blind faith and delusional faith, since it goes contrary to the evidence. Negative or positive, it is still mindless faith.

Atheism denies the possibility of God/s or the supernatural, through reasoned argument.

Agnostics claim that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God/d either way because they are outside the domain logic and the physical world.

See how these words have distinct meanings?

Both are the same in that they do not claim to be able to prove God - which is your claim as what would be called an evidentialist

- as opposed to Fideists - who may be both believers by choice and agnostics.


What you may have seen through our discussions is you are always wrong, for that is the nature of someone going to Hell; that is, when discussing origins and who God is. Think of it this way. You make your world-view in your own image. The universe is a mostly cold and dead place.
Am I cold and dead - by your logic? : )

If you don't search God with all your heart
I didn't think this was about me converting to Christianity - but meeting your challenge to find fault with the proof.