Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Monday, July 29, 2013

Cosmological Skepticism: Can it be revearsed? Is the Argument Valid?


Cosmological argument —    an argument for the existence of God, asserting that the contingency of each entity, and of the universe composed wholly of such entities, demands the admission of an adequate external cause, which is God. n philosophy ontological argument Compare teleological argument one of the arguments that purport to prove the existence of God from empirical facts about the universe, esp. the argument to the existence of a first cause.

36 Arguments for the Existence of God: Goldstein on the Cosmological Argument

William Lane Craig


God's DNA that he put in ALL life on this planet stands against all arguments of the skeptical mind. I have heard the roundabout arguments against DNA saying that it is not a CODE but that is crap response and they know it, it is a code much more complex than and computer code ever invented!

Therefore since this factual evidence cannot be refuted by mere denial or rearranging of the facts it will stand as proof that God is creator and Lord! I know this enrages Atheists and inflames the skeptical mindset that is made-up already against us but....quite frankly I don't care. This Evidence is proof and proof is what THEY say must be presented.

Why do people reject the Christian argument of creation and God? The biggest of reasons why people reject it outright are usually the most superficial and based upon caricature's of the argument NOT the actual argument itself.

Atheist's are masters of the counter claim, they love to mix it up claiming to have knowledge about things they most certainly do not have. The most famous argument they like to push at Christians is in saying that "the burden of proof is at the feet of the Christian NOT THE ATHEIST because WE make the claim that God does exist" thereby releasing themselves of having to prove that they CLAIM God does not exist, WHY? Because we claimed first, sounds like a schoolyard game of tag and your it. So instead of having to prove a negative which they cannot do they kick the can to us and the game never ends.

The problem is no matter how much proof is shown they counter it with nonsense argumentation like children not wanting to lose a game not realizing that proof ends the debate in its tracks, DNA is so infinitely complex as to solve the debate with only a little research only a prime, infinite God could have designed our DNA, natural selection couldn't in billion, billion, billion years solve the simple cell it's complex nature let alone the entire universe!


It is obvious to any thinking person that the logic at which they arrive is fatally flawed, because while this puts them in the advantage in any response we make since we start from the defensive side, it proves nothing in the end but for a lack of understanding about God. Atheists have muddied the water about God in the first place, mixing the True God and his word with the plainly stupid and ignorant gods of men's imaginations. This puts the response of Christian behind thousands of years of bad press and imaginary gods that REALLY DON'T EXIST!

Having dealt with this argument many times I have resigned myself to the fact that Atheists are completely afraid of the fact that God alludes them in every turn, no amount of word playing, denial, or otherwise mixing points together can rescue them from that basic FACT. God cannot be dis-proven and that alone proves He must exist, logically something that does not exist could easily be dis-proven over time. Just as the flat earth was, just as the earth being the center of the Solar System was, just as most fairy tales will or have been......BUT God has eluded the skeptics arguments for thousands of years and will for thousands more since there is no way to prove otherwise.

What about the Cosmological argument for God's existence? Does it follow logically that there is a universal causation, a first cause of all life and matter? I believe it most certainly does but first let's deal with the illogical statements of Atheists. They say that "the argument must fail on the grounds that it contains not one but two Logical Fallacies:
1.) Special Pleading because it contains a rule that only God is exempt from and is able to break which by the way a God such as ours could do quite expectantly because of who he is described to be from scripture UNLIKE any god of man's creation or mankind itself, who are limited by the fact they are bound within time and space.

God on the other hand is ALL POWERFUL, UNLIMITED AND OUTSIDE SPACE AND TIME so naturally he can MAKE a rule within space and time he himself is not bound too! This most logical and very much in keeping with the biblical standard, so Atheists have a great hurdle to jump over in order to make their argument make any sense. 
Forgive me but no human beings are more guilty of this Fallacy than Evolutionists and Atheists because whenever counter rules of science are presented that defy evolution (The 1st and 2nd Laws of thermal dynamics) and fully prove beyond doubt that evolution cannot be the explanation for life they simply say "That particular Law of real science doesn't apply here because.......!" Isn't that simply a restatement of special pleading when they need it?

The rules of evolutionary science were created by men so it follows that men CANNOT have it both ways, creating the rules of science and then conveniently breaking those very rules to appease their argumentation later!
2.) The Fallacy of Composition because it creates the problem of assuming that because a part of the universe has a reason for its existence then the whole universe must by association have that same reason to exist"

What is missed here is the FACT that scripture TELLS US how the universe was created so there is NO ASSUMPTION on our part concerning our solar system and the whole universe. God stated plainly how it was done for the WHOLE (Universe) just as he did for the PART WE LIVE IN (Earth) so the argument is not valid!
Hmmm, seems to me that that is a perfect example of evolutionary thought, don't they believe that natural selection acts across the universe the same way as it did on earth. That my friends is an ASSUMPTION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER OF COMPOSITION! How can they deny God on the same grounds that they accept their own god of evolution? It's very simple actually, most Christians do not think enough to call them on it, but I will. THEY DO NOT KNOW for a fact anything they believe but the true Christian (NOT the religious fake) KNOWS FOR INTERNAL FACT THAT GOD NOT ONLY EXISTS BUT THAT HE CARES DEEPLY FOR THE ATHEIST AND THE SKEPTIC, not their mindset but their lives and what they decide to do with it.

3.) The False Dilemma - meaning that it says that the universe HAD to either come from God or it wouldn't have existed in the first place. Now let's look closer at this bad debate tactic!

 How can they say this when they turn around and then say that the universe was made by a any one of a number of ways, so what is the difference between us saying it was God as the prime mover and them saying it was "The Quantum Tunneling THEORY" "The Black Hole THEORY" "The Multi verse Hypothesis or Bubble THEORY" "The Oscillating Universe THEORY" "The Ekpyrotic Model" "The Eternal Universe THEORY" that created what we see? The answer is simple there is no difference between their forms of argument and ours except ours fits better what is known of the universe.
Listen to the argument over and over until it's truth sinks in, understanding it as it was meant to be understood frees the mind greatly. Atheists love to say it's OK to NOT KNOW HOW IT ALL BEGAN, but that is not a true scientific thought process for while not knowing is fine for a time the heart and mind of the scientist is ever-reaching for an answer. Once we stop seeking truth we will stop growing and eventually stop caring.
 It is disingenuous at best and just plain deceptive at worst for Atheists to use the very things they say we are doing wrong, using it for their own advantage and all the while calling those same arguments illogical for our use! All of their arguments for the beginning of everything rest upon UNPROVEN THEORIES NOT SOLID SCIENCE, I mean where is the science I keep hearing about, all I've seen is the word "Science" mentioned in connection with theories ABOUT Science-fiction ideas but no real science.

The study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment.

A branch of science: a particular area of study or knowledge of the physical world.

A systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject.

Science is completely limited to the physical world and Universe around it, but acts like it knows more about the other side than we who are spiritual do, while they deny it's very existence in the same breath. Science must start to understand it's limits and stop trying to speak to things far away from it's knowledge!



Wednesday, July 17, 2013

What is THE PROOF needed by skeptics to finally convince them?


Proof, is it abstract? Is it Impersonal? Does proof demand certain things are needed in order to believe that the object discussed really exists? At what point does the providing of proof require belief? Does real proof presented end the debate once and for all?

The answers are, NO! proof is not an abstract concept, it a precise; specific result with no way to misinterpret it's story, otherwise it's not proof. If it changes according to one's personal understanding of the theory in question then it proves nothing but that you have nothing backing up your belief.

 Proof is never an impersonal observation of facts, it will always revive the innermost being of the reason, and intellect taking you on a journey of mind and spirit. The Proof that reveals the evidence of God does just that, it stirs up our faith and challenges our reasoning .

And yes true Proof does DEMAND certain criteria be present, it demands that what you believe centers on a reasonable idea or belief. Proof cannot exist for an imaginary theory of the mind. And if it is real Proof of said theory then the end of the said debate should be at hand BUT alas those who ask for the proof have a litany of excuses why our provided proof isn't acceptable to them.

"Atheists say the darnedest things" 

"Religion's Real Child" Abuse by Richard Dawkins, This argument is the most insult driven of the bad reasoning from Dawkins mind. It is not only that but disproven through studies. 

"Belief in God is part of human nature" - Oxford study 

"10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name"

I would state that the real reason Biblical proof's are not accepted is not because they are circular reasoning but simply because skeptics have put a lot on the line concerning real proof of God.....they must accept that not only scripture is true but that their lives are not right with him.

It would make this verse "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) mean more than all eternity to you!

What if it is true after all...

What if God does really love you? What if Jesus is for real after all? What if he could change your life if you allowed him into your heart? What if you're missing out on the best thing ever?

What does exist for theories that rest upon imagination instead of actual proof? Simple: no proof whatsoever! 

They exist only on misinterpreted facts construed to look like proof. This form of false proof has nothing to hold it together except the imagined facts that those who believe a thing believe, it's really clued together from pieces of random facts.


Whenever a Christian debates an Atheist or otherwise Skeptical minded person, we will hear in some form or another "I need Objective Proof in order to believe in your god, objective evidence must be presented, Proof beyond all doubt or rebuttal!"


Lately I have been listening to these debates with Christian vs. Atheist and I've noticed that the responses to the really good arguments made to prove God's existence are NOT very good responses when compared to the arguments made, but they usually are filled with vague ideas of unproven theoretical science rather than solid observable facts at hand! I was wondering why it is that skeptics seem NOT ABLE to get out of the box of God surrounding them? They assume everything and accept only the reality they create around their minds, in other words they have ALREADY made up their minds BEFORE the debate that the arguments being made are crap and simply fill in with big sounding words.

The problem in their responses is not that some facts are presented but that the facts are not proving anything except that they are set in stone and didn't really want to debate in the first place. I have personally witnessed the fact that certain people are not open to my views but then accuse me of the same thing they themselves practice, but I beg to differ I am open to real solid evidence which has NEVER been put forth.....NEVER!
One such argument we've all heard is this one:   "Can god create a stone so large that he cannot move it? If he cannot create such a stone, he is not omnipotent (all-powerful, able to do anything). If he cannot move the stone, he is not omnipotent."

The paradox of the stone does not disprove god in any respect. The fact that god cannot make 3 + 7 = 25 does not mean that he is not omnipotent, because God can do only what CAN BE DONE LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY. Therefore to move a stone that God made too big to move is a logical fallacy. God because he is perfect cannot accomplish something imperfect in reasoning what would be the point?


And this one is the dumbest of arguments put forward as proof that there is no God: Because of Historical Events where religion is to blame for evil actions. I personally hate this assertion just on the grounds that Religion is in any way a representation of God, it fails to prove anything outside of the fact that men and women are complete failures falling short of God's requirements which in fact proves God is right and thus must exist!
To blame God who is perfect for the stupid actions of a few moron belief systems in the World is not a very logical thought process, it would be like blaming ALL Atheists because a few were evil in some way. All mankind has the potential to be evil or and given the right conditions WILL BE!
Atheists love to LUMP all religious experience together as a means to getting to the idea that God could not exist because his people are so evil. But fail to understand that evil comes from a person, so they in turn don't disprove God but instead prove that Satan exists, the cause of the evil they ALL blame on God!

God DID NOT create evil contrary to Isa. 45:7 which is not looked at in it's true context, Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. "

What does this really mean? well actually it's really simple if read in it's context God is the cause of bringing peace or great trouble to those he uses in his plans in the earth. Man must be driven to do what God wills unless they are willing, many Nations do not do his will so God brings them to trouble in order to move them into his will in the earth.

This verse and others like it are not teaching that God was the maker of Satan's changed nature into an Evil incarnation, this is completely against God's highly moral character. God has NO SHADOW OF TURNING in his moral framework, he cannot create evil in this form, Evil came into Satan's heart because of his pride both in his place and in his person under God. Think about what God was doing, creating Mankind UNDER GOD responsible for worshipping God with a renewed spirit in the image and likeness of his moral character. This was as a result of what Satan
The only foundation for morality - the character of God


Now the question is not about their rebuttal arguments to our evidence, the real question is how do they define PROOF AND IS IT THE SAME AS WHAT WE KNOW AS PROOF? I think not for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that they move the playing pieces whenever an argument surfaces that bends their reality a little thus making it impossible to Win IN THEIR MINDS! It's a form of cheating the death of their reasoning! 



According to the Dictionary it is Conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something the test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true the state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved.



Now correct me if I'm wrong but once proof is presented in a fully scientific manner isn't it established fact and not theory? Can you actually move the line in the sand to suit your own belief system, that's what they do on a regular basis. Instead of letting the evidence lead them to the truth they instead protect their preconceived belief system in the face of the proof.


They say there is NO evidence for God, and use the small g instead of the Capital G, is this out of fear or insult? Do they not know the Difference between God and god? You cannot find evidence for god because none exists because any god is a mental image in our minds that leads into false worship but God has many proofs built into creation before their eyes so mention of God the big G isn't optional.

They say there is no clear or coherent definition of god with the small g because they are described differently. This is one of the most deceptive arguments put forth by Atheists because there is ONLY ONE DEFINITION given of God with the Big G and that is fully defined in his word VERY CLEARLY as:
  1. God is eternal.
    (Deuteronomy 33:27; Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 90:2)

  2. God is infinite.
    (1 Kings 8:22-27; Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 102:25-27; Revelation 22:13)
  3. God is self-sufficient and self-existent.
    (Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16)
  4. God is omnipresent (present everywhere).
    (Psalm 139:7-12)
  5. God is omnipotent (all powerful).
    (Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6)
  6. God is omniscient (all knowing).
    (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14)
  7. God is unchanging or immutable.
    (Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8)
  8. God is sovereign.
    (2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 46:9-11)
  9. God is wise.
    (Proverbs 3:19; Romans 16:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:17)
  10. God is holy.
    (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:15)
  11. God is righteous and just.
    (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 11:7; Psalm 119:137)
  12. God is faithful.
    (Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 89:1-8)
  13. God is true and truth.
    (Psalm 31:5; John 14:6; John 17:3; Titus 1:1-2)
  14. God is good.
    (Psalm 25:8; Psalm 34:8; Mark 10:18)
  15. God is merciful.
    (Deuteronomy 4:31; Psalm 103:8-17; Daniel 9:9; Hebrews 2:17)
  16. God is gracious.
    (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 103:8; 1 Peter 5:10)
  17. God is love.
    (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:8)
  18. God is spirit.
    (John 4:24)
  19. God is light, meaning that God's essence is like that of Light which is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans and like all electromagnetic waves, light can travel through a vacuum. Darkness cannot hide light because Light

(James 1:17; 1 John 1:5)

20.    God is triune or trinity, meaning that what makes God, God is manifest in Three Persons; The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

This concept is not as hard to understand as they might let on that it is, as the nature of the universe has revealed through scientific investigation. The common phenomena of universal experience are always related to just three—and only three—physical entities.  The perspective of modern science is clearly that of the universe as a time-space-matter continuum, with each of the three entities essentially indistinguishable from and coterminous with the other two, they like God are THREE AGREEING AS ONE.

The Principles of Cause and Effect
(Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14) 

ALL THESE ATTRIBUTES DESCRIBE GOD VERY CLEARLY, NO OTHER god INVENTED BY MEN CAN COME CLOSE TO THIS DEFINITION. There is no excuse for not understanding God after proper reading of the Bibles definition of the creator. So much for that excuse,....but I must admit that ALL other manmade gods are as described by the Atheist so they have proved ONE thing beyond any doubt that there are NO gods with a small g!


Atheists accuse us of having NO agreement about the Nature and Moral standard of our God but as with the other argument this is untrue. They mix up all gods and throw in the God of the bible in order to confuse the issue. The only way to understand God is to NOT mix him with non-existent gods!

Here is a great Lecture by Charles Finney on Moral Attributes

Here's an Article on the relationship of God's Morality and His Character:

What most of the arguing amounts to between Atheists and Theists isn't as much on the existence of God but on the skeptical mind coming to terms with the concept of God. It is very hard for a naturally skeptical mind to stop doubting something that doesn't live up to THEIR RULES, but once you realize that they don't have a stitch of evidence to DISPROVE GOD the mystery is solved!

Atheists SAY we have the job of proving that God exists, well I think that has been done over and over again by smarter people than me but as usual during debates where the believer lays out the case better than the opponent, the double talk, the insults, the demeaning begins (usually what happens when you argument is loosing ground!) Even when it isn't, to resort to this form of personal attacking is simply a losers way of crying wolf and we all remember where crying wolf left the crier?

It would seem to me that God has more descriptive definition than any person on earth has to prove his or her existence. The Argument against God's character does not hold water, he has provided everything we need to believe in his existence. As for the churches issue with obedience to his leading, that is not God's fault, that is strictly a matter of disobedience to the plain plan of God set forth in his word.

So the essence of Proof is not grounded upon these silly arguments that sometime just confuse where it began. The argument against the Church and it's LACK of living up to the Biblical demand is not lost on me. But it does not prove that God doesn't exist just that the church is stubborn and hardheaded proving that God's love is much bigger than any Atheist could conceive!



Maybe, just maybe the church should get with God's program and start BEING THE PROOF she was meant to be? Go to YouTube to get the series if your interested they will blow your doctrinal minds away. The church has believed herself into DISBELIEF of the very evidence that originally changed the world for Jesus!


Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.