Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
While the propositions above are not demonstrated, the argument is linear, so I take no issue with it.
It's demonstrated in the 4 Step Proof page with several data points. It is exponential, not linear, so you would be taking issue with it, since you think it is linear.

This part doesn't follow from the first part at all. The first part of section (1) addresses sin, and the limitation of time. The second part, despite having "and thus" in front of it, is completely unconnected to the first part, and then adds "since none can compare to Christ." While that may be true, you have not demonstrated it, so it can't be said to be part of the proof (unless more information is added).
Step 1 addresses the expansiveness of time as well as its limitation. Mankind would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So the universe had to have been created. What comes after "And thus," is: "we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ." Logically, it does follows the prior sentence: "since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects."

Throughout the 4 Step Proof I talk about the Minimal Facts Approach, resurrection appearances, multiple attestation, we are all sinners, a sinner needs a Savior, only God will suffice, and how and why only Jesus can be God. I interject with such comments when applicable to that portion of the proof.

Read the paragraph: "As to the matter of comparison with all other faiths or belief systems, only the word of God shows and proves man can't save himself. Only in Christianity does God come down to save man to bring us up to Him. We can't do it ourselves. Man was born into sin, proven by the fact that no man has never not sinned. All other views are works-based belief systems and therefore, utterly fail. Their deities don't take on the likeness of flesh as Jesus did who we confirm proved to exclusivity of the world that He alone is the fullness of the Godhead bodily by His resurrection proof (using the 66 books of the Bible) with emphasis on the Minimal Facts Approach."

Here, I'm assuming that when you write "proof", you're referring to a logical proof. Having broken two rules of logic in the first section already, it's safe to say that your proof is broken.

I'm not interested in the money you've offered (if I were, then I would be breaking the rules of your forum) so that's not the issue. I'm interested in good arguments.

The first part of your proof is clearly broken, so let's deal with that before we go on.
Your two alleged broken rules of logic have fallen back upon you for your mistaken assumptions. Why would you be breaking the rules of the forums desiring the money?

Before we go on, you would need to have a change of mind with regard to your mistaken assumptions.