The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible -- Essentially Romans 1.20

[sealybobo]

The 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible​

Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.

Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.

A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.

The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.

We didn't come from nothing.

What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?

There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.

If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?

The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.

Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).

It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

 

[Parture]

The 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible​

Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.

Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.

A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.

The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.

We didn't come from nothing.

What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?

There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.

If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?

The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.

Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).

It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

 

[sealybobo]

We didn't come from nothing.

What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?

There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.

If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?

The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.

Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).

It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Nothing caused the universe. Just like you think nothing created the creator nothing created the cosmos.

The infinite regress argument isn't even a good argument.

 

[sealybobo]

We didn't come from nothing.

What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?

There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.

If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?

The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.

Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).

It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Ever look at a lava lamp? New bubbles form all the time. Now imagine an infinite amount of bubbles and we all live in one of those bubbles.

When our bubble bursts and no more stars are left we will be recycled into another bubble eventually.

Or an invisible god created all this like Abraham said 7000 years ago.before we had any idea of reality..

Please humans evolve faster.

 

[Parture]

The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.

Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).

It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Nothing caused the universe. Just like you think nothing created the creator nothing created the cosmos.

The infinite regress argument isn't even a good argument.

If nothing created the universe then you are relying on infinite regress of it always existing, but as we have seen that is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. I agree infinite regress is stupid.

 

[Parture]

The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.

Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).

It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Ever look at a lava lamp? New bubbles form all the time. Now imagine an infinite amount of bubbles and we all live in one of those bubbles.

When our bubble bursts and no more stars are left we will be recycled into another bubble eventually.

Or an invisible god created all this like Abraham said 7000 years ago.before we had any idea of reality..

Please humans evolve faster.

7000 years ago was before Adam and Eve were born. You're confused. Gen. 1.1 is 13.8 billion years.

Think how dumb you are for you don't ask where the lava lamp came from. It was made.

You are regressing not evolving with stupid ideas.

 

[sealybobo]

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Nothing caused the universe. Just like you think nothing created the creator nothing created the cosmos.

The infinite regress argument isn't even a good argument.

If nothing created the universe then you are relying on infinite regress of it always existing, but as we have seen that is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. I agree infinite regress is stupid.

This universe as you know it hasn't always existed. It will one day die. Doesn't mean infinite regress. There are other universes beyond our cosmic horizon. Their light hasn't reached us yet. We are just one blip. You think way too much of yourself or your place in the cosmos.

Just stop you're embarrassing yourself.

And honestly we don't know. To say must be an intelligent designer is the most ignorant thing to believe. And arrogant if you think it also cares about you.

 

[Parture]

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Nothing caused the universe. Just like you think nothing created the creator nothing created the cosmos.

The infinite regress argument isn't even a good argument.

If nothing created the universe then you are relying on infinite regress of it always existing, but as we have seen that is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. I agree infinite regress is stupid.

This universe as you know it hasn't always existed. It will one day die. Doesn't mean infinite regress. There are other universes beyond our cosmic horizon. Their light hasn't reached us yet. We are just one blip. You think way too much of yourself or your place in the cosmos.

Just stop you're embarrassing yourself.

And honestly we don't know. To say must be an intelligent designer is the most ignorant thing to believe. And arrogant if you think it also cares about you.

Claiming the universe(s) always existed is infinite regress as one causes another, but this is impossible as you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Since nature can't always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. To deny this proof is pure delusion.

Don't worry about the attributes of the uncreated Creator before accepting His existence outside of time and space. Don't jump the gun on this. Baby steps.

 

[hortysir]

You can't explain that!

Yep

We call it a red herring

 

[hortysir]

Is it time for another silly " pwoofs of the gawds", thread?

Has it been an hour already since the last one?

Just trying to be sure you have ample opportunity to ridicule

 

[Parture]

You can't explain that!

Yep

We call it a red herring

Explain what?

 

[hortysir]

And there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.

That's not true

Superb rebuttal

 

[Parture]

And there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.

That's not true

Superb rebuttal

Ditto

 

[hortysir]

Problems with the Legends Theory

The Resurrection account itself can be traced to the real experiences of the original Apostles even if you disregard the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the other epistles of Peter, James, Jude and John. This can be concluded as follows:

1. Paul recounted the oral tradition he received (1 Cor. 15) from the original Apostles he spent time within just five years after the cross (Gal. 1 & 2), but likely he would have heard about it much sooner than that since he was a persecutor of Christians before being saved;
2. they set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus (in Acts and Paul's epistles);
3. the fact that James, who did not become a believer until after he saw Jesus resurrected, was an Elder of the church of Jerusalem; and
4. various second generation Apostles reported they knew the original Apostles who testified to them that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

If embellishments were added over time so that the ending of the account became the resurrection of Jesus, then the original disciples would have given an account which would not have included the resurrection. But these earliest sources are the best evidence we have, and there are no early sources contradicting their eyewitness testimony.

Paul came to Christ through an experience which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus objectively with others present with him whom also at that moment had seen the light, fell to the ground, heard the voice and may have seen the man, but did not understand what was happening as Paul was talking to Jesus.

Since his conversion was based on his personal eyewitness testimony of the appearance of Jesus along with the testimony of the original Apostles having the same eyewitness testimony whom he spent time with, we can be sure legends theory is not possible as people don't willingly die for what they believe to be a lie. All of the original Apostles were put to death for their claim except for John who was imprisoned. Paul almost died seven times in the Scriptures before his final martyrdom in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD.

With the early martyrdom of James the Greater and Stephen, and Jesus telling the disciples they would be put to death for their eyewitness testimony of having seen Him resurrected, precedence was clearly set in their own hearts, they knew full well what was going to happen to them if they continued to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ being God and died on the cross for the sins of the world, was resurrected the third day, seen the fortieth day ascending to the clouds and gave the Holy Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost.

Legends theory does not account for the martyrdom of the Apostles in their defense of the resurrection of Jesus. People don't willingly allow themselves to be put to death unless they really believed it, so those original twelve Apostles who spent over three years with Jesus would not set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus if Jesus did not really rise from the dead. There were no early churches we know of that were not based on the resurrection of Jesus.

If the resurrection occurred they would be in the best position to know it more than anyone. Hence, the original disciples are the best primary source and thus, the key source.

Of all that we can glean from the New Testament, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. As Gary Habermas puts it, "The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus." The appearances were on multiple occasions with different individuals in places.

Claims of alien abductions, encounters with Bigfoot, sightings of Nessie, etc., can be traced to the real experiences of those with an agenda to pursue.

And if threatened with torture or death, the people you speak of would recant

 

[sealybobo]

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Nothing caused the universe. Just like you think nothing created the creator nothing created the cosmos.

The infinite regress argument isn't even a good argument.

If nothing created the universe then you are relying on infinite regress of it always existing, but as we have seen that is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. I agree infinite regress is stupid.

This universe as you know it hasn't always existed. It will one day die. Doesn't mean infinite regress. There are other universes beyond our cosmic horizon. Their light hasn't reached us yet. We are just one blip. You think way too much of yourself or your place in the cosmos.

Just stop you're embarrassing yourself.

And honestly we don't know. To say must be an intelligent designer is the most ignorant thing to believe. And arrogant if you think it also cares about you.

Claiming the universe(s) always existed is infinite regress as one causes another, but this is impossible as you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Since nature can't always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. To deny this proof is pure delusion.

Don't worry about the attributes of the uncreated Creator before accepting His existence outside of time and space. Don't jump the gun on this. Baby steps.

Google infinite regress argument for creation and see the problems or holes in your argument.

If the cosmos isn't eternal then what happens when all the stars and planets die? Will it be the end of the universe? God won't ever start over in another 500 billion years?

And I thought with god all things are possible. Then that means it is possible god doesn't exist.

 

[sealybobo]

Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.

You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.

That's how big the universe is. Infinite.

You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.

What is infinite regress? Our universe as we see it didn't look like it does now 22 billion years ago. Lots of the stars back then have since died. Some of them once harbored life. Stars that haven't even been born yet will one day harbor life. The lives lost in the past and the lives born in the future only live once. Just like a trilobite or dinosaur that lived billions of years ago.

And one day all the stars in our universe will die out. What will happen to all that matter? Will it be recycled billions of years in the future?


You're creating an unnecessary argument. Why does my theory mean we would have already happened?

You are the one claiming there is an infinite past of cause and effects in nature, so by that definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So that blows that theory of yours.

The contradiction gets even worse when you realize that if there was this infinite regress, you should never have happened because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity so as to never reach this point.

Scholars have noted these inherent flaws in infinite regress theory. Infinite regress is just a man made theory to reject God, but it is a flawed theory. It might make it interesting for the movies and Mormonism, but it is not reality. As you know Mormons believe they all existed for eternity in the past. That seems like a cult that would favor your beliefs.

Ever look at a lava lamp? New bubbles form all the time. Now imagine an infinite amount of bubbles and we all live in one of those bubbles.

When our bubble bursts and no more stars are left we will be recycled into another bubble eventually.

Or an invisible god created all this like Abraham said 7000 years ago.before we had any idea of reality..

Please humans evolve faster.

7000 years ago was before Adam and Eve were born. You're confused. Gen. 1.1 is 13.8 billion years.

Think how dumb you are for you don't ask where the lava lamp came from. It was made.

You are regressing not evolving with stupid ideas.

What created the creator?

 

[sealybobo]

Something had to create something so perfect. Why's it hiding from us?

 

[Parture]

Problems with the Legends Theory

The Resurrection account itself can be traced to the real experiences of the original Apostles even if you disregard the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the other epistles of Peter, James, Jude and John. This can be concluded as follows:

1. Paul recounted the oral tradition he received (1 Cor. 15) from the original Apostles he spent time within just five years after the cross (Gal. 1 & 2), but likely he would have heard about it much sooner than that since he was a persecutor of Christians before being saved;
2. they set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus (in Acts and Paul's epistles);
3. the fact that James, who did not become a believer until after he saw Jesus resurrected, was an Elder of the church of Jerusalem; and
4. various second generation Apostles reported they knew the original Apostles who testified to them that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

If embellishments were added over time so that the ending of the account became the resurrection of Jesus, then the original disciples would have given an account which would not have included the resurrection. But these earliest sources are the best evidence we have, and there are no early sources contradicting their eyewitness testimony.

Paul came to Christ through an experience which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus objectively with others present with him whom also at that moment had seen the light, fell to the ground, heard the voice and may have seen the man, but did not understand what was happening as Paul was talking to Jesus.

Since his conversion was based on his personal eyewitness testimony of the appearance of Jesus along with the testimony of the original Apostles having the same eyewitness testimony whom he spent time with, we can be sure legends theory is not possible as people don't willingly die for what they believe to be a lie. All of the original Apostles were put to death for their claim except for John who was imprisoned. Paul almost died seven times in the Scriptures before his final martyrdom in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD.

With the early martyrdom of James the Greater and Stephen, and Jesus telling the disciples they would be put to death for their eyewitness testimony of having seen Him resurrected, precedence was clearly set in their own hearts, they knew full well what was going to happen to them if they continued to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ being God and died on the cross for the sins of the world, was resurrected the third day, seen the fortieth day ascending to the clouds and gave the Holy Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost.

Legends theory does not account for the martyrdom of the Apostles in their defense of the resurrection of Jesus. People don't willingly allow themselves to be put to death unless they really believed it, so those original twelve Apostles who spent over three years with Jesus would not set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus if Jesus did not really rise from the dead. There were no early churches we know of that were not based on the resurrection of Jesus.

If the resurrection occurred they would be in the best position to know it more than anyone. Hence, the original disciples are the best primary source and thus, the key source.

Of all that we can glean from the New Testament, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. As Gary Habermas puts it, "The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus." The appearances were on multiple occasions with different individuals in places.

Claims of alien abductions, encounters with Bigfoot, sightings of Nessie, etc., can be traced to the real experiences of those with an agenda to pursue.

And if threatened with torture or death, the people you speak of would recant

Yet the Apostles never did. They willingly died for their beliefs so they did not lie.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Today I woke up exactly 5 minutes before my alarm clock went off.

You can't explain that.

 

[sealybobo]

Problems with the Legends Theory

The Resurrection account itself can be traced to the real experiences of the original Apostles even if you disregard the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the other epistles of Peter, James, Jude and John. This can be concluded as follows:

1. Paul recounted the oral tradition he received (1 Cor. 15) from the original Apostles he spent time within just five years after the cross (Gal. 1 & 2), but likely he would have heard about it much sooner than that since he was a persecutor of Christians before being saved;
2. they set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus (in Acts and Paul's epistles);
3. the fact that James, who did not become a believer until after he saw Jesus resurrected, was an Elder of the church of Jerusalem; and
4. various second generation Apostles reported they knew the original Apostles who testified to them that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

If embellishments were added over time so that the ending of the account became the resurrection of Jesus, then the original disciples would have given an account which would not have included the resurrection. But these earliest sources are the best evidence we have, and there are no early sources contradicting their eyewitness testimony.

Paul came to Christ through an experience which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus objectively with others present with him whom also at that moment had seen the light, fell to the ground, heard the voice and may have seen the man, but did not understand what was happening as Paul was talking to Jesus.

Since his conversion was based on his personal eyewitness testimony of the appearance of Jesus along with the testimony of the original Apostles having the same eyewitness testimony whom he spent time with, we can be sure legends theory is not possible as people don't willingly die for what they believe to be a lie. All of the original Apostles were put to death for their claim except for John who was imprisoned. Paul almost died seven times in the Scriptures before his final martyrdom in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD.

With the early martyrdom of James the Greater and Stephen, and Jesus telling the disciples they would be put to death for their eyewitness testimony of having seen Him resurrected, precedence was clearly set in their own hearts, they knew full well what was going to happen to them if they continued to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ being God and died on the cross for the sins of the world, was resurrected the third day, seen the fortieth day ascending to the clouds and gave the Holy Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost.

Legends theory does not account for the martyrdom of the Apostles in their defense of the resurrection of Jesus. People don't willingly allow themselves to be put to death unless they really believed it, so those original twelve Apostles who spent over three years with Jesus would not set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus if Jesus did not really rise from the dead. There were no early churches we know of that were not based on the resurrection of Jesus.

If the resurrection occurred they would be in the best position to know it more than anyone. Hence, the original disciples are the best primary source and thus, the key source.

Of all that we can glean from the New Testament, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. As Gary Habermas puts it, "The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus." The appearances were on multiple occasions with different individuals in places.

Claims of alien abductions, encounters with Bigfoot, sightings of Nessie, etc., can be traced to the real experiences of those with an agenda to pursue.

Please explain the problem with the infinite regression argument this person thinks is proof the universe can't be eternal.