The Illogical Thinking of Bob the Atheist

Bob the Atheist is back. My reply to Bob is as follows.

You said, "you throw in evolution, people should be perfect and sinless by now as nature can't always have existed...not even going into that." That's not what I said. Yes, I know you shut your mind down, you don't need to remind me. People should be more perfected by now because nature can't always have existed? You form your arguments by sinning bearing false witness, thus violating Step 3 of the Proof; that is, don't misrepresent the proof we observe in God's word. Rather, IF there was an infinite regress of evolution and no cause for evolution, mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity and not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on. Moreover, you would have happened already if there was an eternity going on, having had an eternity to come into being. Even weirder, if there was an infinite regress, you would have never come into being, because an eternity would still be going on never reaching this point.

In the fall of 2003, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proved infinite regress is impossible according to the popular though conflicting naturalistic models. Cyclical and multiverse models all break down. Infinite regress is proven self-contradictory. By the way you did not need to wait till 2003 to realize this, for the Bible says nothing is new under the sun, and "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20). In other words, we observe nature always needs a cause, but infinite regress could not be possible, because if it were true, we would have happened already having an eternity to come into being. Pretty simple. Not so simple for someone lost in their self-exalted self, trying to usurp themselves above God.

Scientists are convinced the earth is 4.5 billion years old, so you think the earth was always here? You said, "you still haven't addressed that the earth hasn't been here forever. There's no infinite regress here." Why would infinite regress according to your faith have to encompass earth always being here? That makes no sense. Something caused the earth and would be just another missing link in your chain of infinite regress. All things in nature have a cause. We observe trillions of causes in nature which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so an eternity of the past of cause and effects would require a cause, but you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do, approximating into (according to the law of limits) that alleged past eternity, just as heat death would be greater and all things would approximate into that alleged past infinite regress. In the past six thousand years since Adam the exponential progression doesn't need a million let a lone a billion years in the backdrop of a supposed past eternity to approach near sinlessness.
You said, "So we are in agreement on a point that is at odds with an axiom of your proof." There are no axioms in my proof. It is all evidentially based (I'm a Christian evidentialist, not an atheist suppositionalist) which we all know in our conscience and is simple to understand. There is still a spark of morality in you even though you don't want to listen to your God-given spirit of God-consciousness. We all have this spirit of God-consciousness for every society practices the worship of what they deem to be God. Are we in agreement that nature cannot always have existed? I haven't heard you confess this yet. If you agree as you say we are in agreement, then you agree nature can't always have existed, so it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space (outside the facets of nature). This is whom we call God, our uncreated Creator, who necessarily must be timeless and spaceless, and God specifically proves who He is by the resurrection proof.

Bob, you said, "you think you won because you just kept on arguing and I didn't respond." But if I showed you your mistaken thinking above (like the phrase your dad uses, 'stinkin' thinkin'), then don't you have the same problem of shutting your mind down and deceiving yourself? I am not aware of anywhere where you addressed anything about the proof for Christianity! You still haven't addressed the fact you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs that almost all scholars, even skeptical ones, concede the disciples truly believed in various group settings they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Since no naturalistic explanation in the past two thousand years has been forthcoming that fits the data most scholars accept for good reason, and this is relatively simple to figure out since it is not rocket science, then I think you show to people the type of person you are who wants to go to Hell (to be eternally separated from God). Thus, you are leading people to Christ because you are unable to defend your atheistic religion and blind faith, nor able to overturn testimony of the disciples. And so people don't want to be like you. You turn them off.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

Troy Brooks