Hi Troy, my name is Adam.

Having been raised and schooled in a Christian environment, the question of God's existence has always been of interest to me. In the interest of open dialogue I must admit that I am an agnostic, having never found the argument for believing satisfactory, although recently I have perceived that there is something eternal, unchanging and pervasive – an underlying cosmic order which is very beautiful. I have always been fond of talking about religion, though my friends (most of which are Christians of varying degrees) inevitably become uncomfortable when talk turns to questions of proof, justification or cause for belief in God. You however do not strike me as someone who will be uncomfortable discussing this.

Today, I came across a posting of your purported “4 step proof for God” and your promise of a substantial reward for an acceptable overturning of this proof.

“If you would like to make an attempt to disprove the proof for God, there is a forum where you can do so. $10,000in U.S. dollars (getting cheaper by the day) has been reserved and offered to the first person who can disprove God's proof of Himself. Thousands have tried but failed. Since I am a child of God and thus, set before God with authority in His kingdom and bound for heaven, you can't ask for a better arbitrator.”

As the sole arbitrator, and a true believer I hope you will not be greatly biased against my thoughts and observations. Often when arguments deal with people’s most closely held ideas, the ability and willingness to entertain an opposing point of view is lost. The fact that you have published this proof seems to suggest that you are open to the idea that logic evidence can rule in or out the existence of God. An idea with which I disagree, which classes me as an agnostic.

I would ask you to keep an open mind and consider my thoughts, in the spirit of openness, and if possible entertain for a while my position – agnosticism – and pretend to examine the proof from my perspective – one without God.

PREFACE

What constitutes proof?

I consider proof as having two essential components.

·Correspondence to reality, a definite, demonstrable factual basis
·Logical rigor, conclusions follow deductively from conclusions, no logical fallacies.

If your 4 step proof lacks these two things in any respect you must admit that the “4 Step Proof” is flawed, wrong and hence overturned. That is unless it is actually 4 separate proofs. Perhaps you disagree with what I consider to constitute proof, please advise me of your definition.

In response to my commentary and the flaws found you will be aware that you cannot logically give recourse to arguments from God, or any statement or idea garnered from scriptures since, this proof purports to prove the existence of God. Rebutting in this way would clearly constitute circular reasoning as the existence of God would be implied.

For every system of ideas you will find a basis which requires belief – that is axioms. There is no proof for these axioms – otherwise this proof forms the basic axioms of the system.

In Christianity, there are two fundamental axioms;
·There is a God
·The Bible is inerrant/ mostly inerrant
Without accepting these two axioms, one is not a Christian – all else follows from this basis.

In my previous discussions with Christians I discovered that this basis is untenable – it is not arrived at through reason, or rationalization, but supported by faith– arguments and rationalizations come later. Though rather than the axioms untenability being a weakness of Christianity – it is its greatest strength. Rational argument alone cannot dissuade a person of faith from their beliefs, simply because there was never a rational foundation to question.

I do not claim to provide a disproof for the conclusion that there is a God; I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement. What I will dispute is the factuality, and logical validity of the overall proof, its premises and mechanisms.

I also want to make it clear – though I admit that I was unable to comprehend all that is written here – if any of these flaws remain inadequately and fallaciously answered, you must in good faith accept that the proof being in part flawed is in its entirety flawed. My exposition however is not a proof but commentary and criticism and is not subject to the above mentioned condition, as its observations are separate unto themselves.