Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 150

Thread: 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,408
    Blog Entries
    28
    Rep Power
    19

    Smile 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible



    The proof for God of the Bible is very simple. It is an extension of the basic idea of God asking you to look up at the stars and the mountains and ask yourself, Did you do that?

    Here it goes: If for an eternity there has been cause and effects, then that means you would have had an eternity to be perfected, to be without sin. But since you still sin, you know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. IF having had an eternity and seeing the exponentional progression since even only 6000 years ago, this shows it will not take an infinity to reach sinlessness, let alone another 6000 years since the first God-conscious Adamic man. For example, man usually does not throw their children in the mouth of the Molech god to burn them to death alive. Israel was suppose to wipe out those nations, but failed, so we do however see a resemblance of it to some extent in Islam teaching their kids suicide mass-murder is holy and righteous, allowing them not to have to wait thousands of years, but they get to go straight to the 72 virgins.

    Once an atheist/agnostic or other non-Trinitarian says, fine, then what about the Big Bang, Why can't that be the beginning? they ask. The reason is because nothing in nature happens all by itself, not the big bang, not singularity, nothing! Ergo, God did it! That is to say, since the created things or beings can not have caused it, therefore it is the uncreated that created the creation.

    Then the atheist/agnostics accepts this fact, but reaches for another excuse in their mind. They ask then, Why can't God be caused by some god? Since this Proof for God of the Bible is about God uncreated, the answer to that question is that you are trying to disprove some god or gods, but not the concept of the Uncreated Creator God.

    After the atheist/agnostic realizes this mistake, finally, they make one last ditch effort to salvage their own religion and faith. They say, Ok fine, Why can't there be gods creating gods? The answer is simple, There can not be an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, because you would have had an eternity to be perfected to be without sin. This takes you back round to the first step.

    It is the Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (given Christ). It's always been known even since the time of Moses.

    It's interesting after this truth, it is often found that it can't be understood when it is so clear. We must conclude the reason it can't be understood is because of what 1 Cor. 2.13 says,

    "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2.13).

    If you don't have the Holy Spirit in your spirit, how then could you ever understand this Proof of Creation and the Creator of this Proof God of the Bible?

    There is always a verse to describe the essence of the spirituality of what is going on in an interaction or scenario such as this thread and the responses seen.

    My recommendation is spending a good long time reading over each sentence in the the first post; who knows, you may even come to the cross to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior! Praise the Lord!

    $10,000 U.S. is being offered to the first person who can overturn the perfect proof for God of the Bible. [Since nobody has been able to come up with something in the last 5 years, plus I am broke and need the money, this offer has been cancelled - 2010]

    The reason for this offer is to show that, still, no agnostic/atheist can find fault with the Proof. In the work world, if someone offers you $10,000 to perform a task, most who seek employment needing the work would do the work, but the atheist/agnostic does not when it comes to their faith because their's is blind faith. It would be an impossible task. In the work world, the non-believer would have been fired, how much more in God's design?

    All previous attempts have been removed, because they all had some flaw, and everything is answered in the 4 Step Proof. Only new arguments will be allowed so as not to drown people with repetitiveness.

    The only stipulation is the challenger must present his or her case at Biblocality Forums in this thread.

    Oh, by the way, if you get crass and abusive, you're banned. This includes nicknames, emails, self-declarations, being ignorant (belligerent), and lying on the 18 questions (now 19) at registration also found under "Edit Profile". If there is no love, then all your efforts are in vain stemming from self.

    Get a Conscience!

    Before posting, if you are up to the challenge, realize these important points so you don't waste your time:

    - people are misreading the proof, in which it is shown how they are misreading it be quoting the words they misread. Please put more effort into reading slowly to really understand what is being said. For example, many are calling the cause and effect feature we witness in creation as being evolution since the amoeba, not delineating before the amoeba there were causes and effects also (this would not be evolution). Do not confuse these two terms - EVOLVING (encompassing all causes and effects) and EVOLUTION (physical development since the amoeba). This is explained in the first sentence of the Proof, so if people can't even get past the first sentence, DO NOT be surprised if you get banned for being this obstinate.
    - hundreds of people have tried and failed.
    - please stop just giving mindless self-declarations; back up what you say with reasons. Humility is needed.
    - stop trying to make yourself look smart by using big words, but apply those words with reasoning and intelligence.
    - when you try to make a point, do so by being specific. If you can't be conscientious enough to be specific, then don't bother attempting a disproof. You need to be courteous, not belligerent. Vagueness, coy and obfuscating thought of your flesh is retarded.
    - Christians, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, can easily expose attempts and misdirection and deflection, so don't even try.
    - try to read what has already been posted so there is not more duplication. There has been way too much duplication.
    - the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible is very refined, and I have noticed there has been nothing to tweak in this latest round of efforts to disprove it (that is, no new thoughts have been introduced that I have not heard before); the same 4 Steps have been the same since inception. The tweaking is simply to add clarification to be courteous. Please show the same courtesy.

    - surely the most talented and cream of the crop atheists/agnostics can provide a thought worth discussing rather than imposing self-declarations by blind faith. Or was that your best effort already?

    Why Can't You Believe?

    Many of you are probably wondering by now why you can't believe in Jesus. You think to yourself, what is wrong with you as a person?

    Let me tell you that sin has so permeated your entire being that it is difficult to know whether you are coming or going, whether to believe one thing or another. You are stuck in your head's rationalizations, moving from one thought to the next about what you are actually doing here on earth, or at the very least, asking why your thoughts are so garbled? Yet no answer satisfies. What is going on? What is going to happen? How can you know instead of bouncing around in your head? Through your spirit you can know, which is your inner man or inner woman in the deepest inner recesses of your being with its intuition and conscience and ability to commune. It is in that still small voice and inner registrations where God can impart His life to you. Once you are born-again, you may not sense His presence right away, yet you have believed. Therefore, know the Spirit is in your spirit after believing, and He will work within you in your cooperation with the Son. You will begin to sense His abiding presence. The more you abide in Him, the more His grace touches your spirit, then reaching your soul and body, from inner to outer.

    If you can just accept this about yourself: you sin and you do make mistakes, that it is not your fault for being born into sin, but you were born into sin which causes you to do the things you do. Sin leads to death; unforgiveness of sins leads to hell, no matter how much you think it not to be the case, for you are desensitized to your sin nature. It may not be your fault that you were born into sin, but it is your fault if you don't come out of sin by giving your life to Christ. How can you give up self? Come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Through His death on the cross there is the promise of forgiveness of all you have ever done, as well as power over sin and self as the Holy Spirit will apply the cross to your life. We are speaking about not only sin but the selfishness of self which is not obedient to the One who created you in His image, that image by which you have a right to know God is the great I AM personally and intimately. The Father who is in heaven is perfectly loving. How well do you treat your parents who are flawed? How are you treating God the Father who spoke forth and the Son created and the Holy Spirit renewed over all of creation to allow you to make the choice.

    Jesus is speaking...

    "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in the only Son of God." (John 3.16,18)

    Conclusion to this Whole Thread

    The Holy Spirit has shown us in this thread that not only does an atheist/agnostic not have anything to go up against the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, but they really don't even try. This is how belligerent and obstinate they are in their approach. Myself also having been unsaved once just like you, I know all the struggles the flesh goes through to not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The wisdom that can be imparted is this: when you choose God it is an authentic choice which happens because it is your right, made in the image of God (Gen. 1.26,27), to believe in the truth to accept and receive God's mercy, love and saving grace.

    He loves you, and the last thing He wants is for you to perish, but He will not coerce you, nor can He annihilate your existence. To do either of these two things is against His righteousness (way of doing things) and holiness (His nature). Thus, putting you in hell is necessary if you continue to refuse to come to the cross. Jesus said, even if He were to come before you right this minute in Person, still you would not be convinced. You would find some way to rationalize yourself in rejecting Christ.

    Don't think you will be convinced with 10 miracles. Even 1000 miracles would not convince you. 10 parchments would not convince you, not even 100,000 parchments would convince you from so many corroborating sources in the lives and experiences of witnesses, even from non-believers who record these events in history of this man Jesus Christ who said He was God. In Case for Christ and Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, there is referenced a hundred different sources from the first century, both secular and non-secular of the life and resurrection of Christ. Whether you believe in Jesus or not, these documents undeniably are on record.

    What the atheist/agnostic needs to look at I can not force them to look at. They have to look at it of their own volition and this requires they read with a conscientiousness to bring them to understanding which shows why they are still unregenerates and what keeps them separated from God.

    The furthest any agnostic/atheist got never even approached getting past Step 1 in which they do not see the exponential velocity in man's conscience. I could not get anyone to confront this in any meaningful way, because it is their conscience that is the problem, the very thing they don't want to look at in their inner man or inner woman which God is showing them if they would only listen. This is why the greater portion of the Bible is the OT law which no man could keep except Jesus Christ. From this you should know you have a sin nature which is not God's nature, and realize man has taken this sin nature for himself because of disobedience to God. In a very simple way we can say it this way: we will not keep killing each other for another million years. Ergo, Step 1 shows us God created because it doesn't take forever to be perfected into sinlessness.

    The avoidance (not inability to see) of this very point about the exponential improvement in conscience is where the unregenerated is stuck. His mind does not want to investigate this. He will do anything with his time, except look at this information. If the consideration is not given to stop repeating things which had already been addressed, then expect to be banned. If a person makes point A, and someone responds with point B, don't regress back to repeating point A, leaving point B unaddressed and undealt with. You are not a clanging bell. Don't be rude!

    Those who join unethically have nothing to offer because they begin from false pretense. They should not fabricate their answers since this is dishonest. If their posts are contrary to the information they submit in their profile, this is easily discerned by the Holy Spirit imparted to the believer. Because of this persistent problem from spammers, the owner of the forum, in agreement with the moderators and othe members of the forum, reserves the right to remove any account not being used and disallow any registrant suspected of being a spammer. Sadly, this is the only option available in a house of God, in which spammers are unethically trying to break in.

    After hundreds of people have tried in their petty self, but failed, to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible, we can conclude convincingly the Proof is perfect. In all of history, no writer has ever been able to overturn the Proof for God. If they had someone could have presented their case by now. We give glory to God for His Proof of Himself! And the Proof makes no mention of God first in His Proof to prove Him so as not to be blamed for assuming God first. This is quite opposite to the approach of atheists/agnostics who first assume God does not exist, then derive their false conclusions by overassuming premises.

    If you want to stay, even if you are not saved, you can still be tolerant of others, so don't misread bearing false witness for this is obstinate and inconsiderate which debases any discussion. And don't lie in your profile when you answer the 18 questions at registration (now 19).

    This forum is a privilege to be on to strengthen the body of Christ.

  2. #2
    FSTDT Guest

    Default

    I am responding to your Four-Step proof for God. Originally, I put my reply here, however as per your request, I'm putting my reply in this thread. This reply was authored jointly between myself and Juliet; you can tell when we've switched off writing, because I'm not quite as "nice" as Juliet, and I use the pronoun "you" where Juliet uses "Troy". I'll divide up my reply into a couple of different headings (this will be a copy and paste of what I've written on my website):

    [Removed the bulk of the post with unnecessary links to atheist sites and inordinate spacing, but it is quoted in the response: post #3, 02-13-2006, 01:26 PM]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,408
    Blog Entries
    28
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    FSTDT (For Satan The Demonic Thinker),

    I will only respond to what you posted that needs to be responded to. The rest need not be responded to because it is out of context or inordinately vague and unspecific. For others that read this, in the case that I ban FSTDT, know that he responded by answering "No" to all 18 questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by FSTDT
    A quick search of Troys’ forum indicates that Troy has used the keyword "banned" in at least 63 other posts. So, my theory is this: its not that Troys’ argument is so good that no critic can answer it, but rather Troy simply bans all the critics from his forum.
    This is a vague conclusion to draw, when in fact this many and more bannings were needed, usually giving the reason. Many forums do not courteously give the reason. Your theory is too vague. Learn to deal specifically.

    Troy calls his argument the perfect proof for God. But, Christian theology holds that no human being is perfect, not even Troy himself; he cannot create perfection, only God can. So, from the very start, I am justified in presuming Troy’s proof is imperfect, because it comes from a fallible human being.
    This is false reasoning because though Christians are being perfected by God, it does not mean we are imperfect in all things. One of those things that is perfected is the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible which flows from the perfect Word of God.

    I do believe I have the upper edge in one way: both Troy and I are human beings, but there is a good chance that I am a more critical and cautious writer than Troy, and there is another probable chance that I have a greater number of books and resources at my disposal than Troy. I base my comments on a somewhat educated guess; whereas I have dozens of books on philosophy and theology sitting on my bookshelf and intend to cite many of them at length, I see no indication that Troy has cited any sources for his essay apart from the Bible. Its uncommon for a person to present a rigorous and lengthy proof of God without referencing to any sources, so I presume he has none.
    The truth of this mistaken assumption is that quoting men is not the touchstone since all those men could be wrong. If a truth in itself is reasonably true, then it stands alone as true as it specifically is a proof unto itself. My curiousity will be as I read your response whether you actually deal with the specificity of the Proof instead of talking around it.

    He appears to deny that observing the universe is unnecessary to demonstrate the existence of God; rather, he says all we need to prove God’s existence is the forcefulness of the rules of strict deductive and inductive logical inference. There are two things worth noting about this comment:
    Yes. I do deny that observing the universe is unnecessary. You must observe the universe to know God created. Do you see the error in your double negative, for then you wrote, "rather..." This is why the Bible says, look at the mountains and the stars, and asks, did you do that? Looking at creation is apply correct logic.

    Troy internally contradicts himself. Observe: [In the quoted portion above:] We don’t need to analyze the cosmos till the cows come home with grand theories... [At the very end of the essay:] Eventually the sun and all stars should die out but the universe will never collapse on itself for scientist today agree that dark energy is a greater force than dark matter and matter itself. Dark energy, scientifically proven, pushes outwardly expanding the universe at an exponential rate in spite of the pervasive force of gravity pressing in. It turns out that this great force of gravity ironically is weak, and also is (tentatively) the avenue through which we are raised "to the throne" (Rev. 7.9). Only God could create such a vast complexity.
    There is no contradiction. This is true.

    On the one hand, Troy believes a proof for God can be made by logical inference, without relying on scientific observations of the universe. On the other hand, Troy emphasizes a point that observations of the universe indicate a complexity that only the God-hypothesis can explain. Observing complexity is an empirical observation, existing quite apart from the exclusively logical means that Troy intended to use in his proof for God. This is not necessarily a problem for Troys’ proof, but just something I noticed.
    Scientific observation is what God asks us to observe, which the 4 Step Proof does. So, there is not the "on the other hand."

    Troy appears to emphasize the value of intuition. I’m afraid Troy has left this word undefined, so I will have to define it myself: an intuition is an unexamined personal conviction. Using that definition, intuition is almost entirely useless to any human being trying to make factual statements about the universe.
    Intuition is not an unexamined personal conviction, but rather, it is a function which is observable in human beings wherein they know something to be true, without all the facts, yet the facts that have been acquired can adequately stimulate the intuition to abide in the truth non-overassumingly. It should be noted that intuition can also be misused to be overassuming. For example, when one misreads by saying "without relying on scientific obsersavation" when scientific observation was observed. The intuition was not right in the person who accused. In the intuition of this person resides the evil spirit as both Juliet and FSTDT call Jesus a liar.

    Similarly, there is an ancient intuitive belief that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, but this intuitive belief is false. All objects fall at the same acceleration.
    This is actually wrong. You can prove it yourself. Go to the top of a building and drop two objects of same size and shape but different weight. One will fall faster than another. Only in a perfect vacuum is what you say true.

    For the simple reason that intuitions contradict, we cannot take it as a given that intuitional beliefs make factual statements about the universe. Certainly, some intuitions may correspond to facts, but they are not statements of fact in themselves.
    This is why we do not rely solely on intuition, but God asks us, in the Bible, to observe the facts, but do not forsake intuition that is knowing.

    More importantly, when one person has an intuitional belief that contradicts another persons intuitional belief, how are we supposed to know which intuitional belief is correct? If we just focus on the intuitions themselves without reference to anything else, there is no reason to prefer one intuition above any other. However, by appeal to the sciences, we have a means to confirm an intuitional belief. However, when we realize that science is the tool being used to make factual statements about the universe, and not intuitions themselves, we realize that intuitions never have anything to do with the final product of stating facts in the first place; intuitions are irrelevant to truths about the universe.
    Intuition is vital. Why? Because even after a truth has been revealed, it is still rejected by those who do not rely on a clean intuition.

    Inordinate analysis and mental gymnastics are total vanity to make the case that God created. The reason we study the sciences is not to find out if God exists but for the sake of furthering understanding of scientific phenomenon to glorify God.

    This is an unwarranted presumption, and in fact it is blatantly false. Many people are fascinated by science without having any corresponding beliefs about how science glorifies God, I’m just such a person. Certainly, some people believe science glorifies the existence of God, but you appear to be speaking for the scientific community as a whole; if this is the case, you’re deliberately misrepresenting the scientific community. Science makes no statements about the existence of God, nor any statements about our obligations to glorify or worship God.
    I am not speaking for the scientific community as a whole, since there are many scientists who are non-believers with flawed reasoning. Science proves God: for example, the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God. God in the Bible asks us to observe science to know God is I AM. Don't pride yourself on a lie that you are just such a person who appreciates science while rejecting God. In reality, you don't really appreciate science, since you make it an idol for yourself above God. If you truly appreciated science you would abide in it's purpose given by God to glorify God.

    In our understanding of certain facts to fulfill His will for our lives and His greater purpose, He afford us this ability to know these certain things by grace for believers (and even common grace too all for the benefit of believers) to reach on towards the new city in the new earth. His aim is to be with believers in eternity.

    Of course, even if we presumed the existence of God, it isn’t necessarily true that science glorifies him, that he desires people to worship him, or that he even cares about humanity at all. You have a very narrow conception of God, ascribing attributes to God without justifications. Your conception of God is particular to your religion; however, not every person who believes in God is a member of your religion. Deists for example believe God created the universe, but they also believe God has abandoned his creation; they would certainly deny that science glorifies this god or that this god is even worthy of worship. This is actually a significant point to make, because throughout your essay you offer no explanation for why your particular conception of God should be preferred over a deistic conception (or any other conception for that matter), but asserted it as a brute statement of fact without establishing it.
    Your statement is brutish. We do not presume the existence of God, but in the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible, we prove Him, and that science glorifies Him, that He desires us to worship Him, and that He cares about humanity. Your view is very independent of God, disobedient like the fall. Look at the Proof that proves God instead of speaking in generalities. God is specific. You be specific. Everyone who believes in God is a member of my religion, for what is religion? It is the worship of God or something else. To worship God is to believe in God. You can't not worship God and still believe in Him. Because a believer believes, He worships. Since it is God of the Bible that created, all gods or idols and creation are below Him. God did not abandon creation, so deists do not believe in God, though they may claim they do; yet, they call Jesus a liar. Jesus did not lie to you. A loving God does not abandon His creation. Jesus did not abandon us but He broke into creation to die for us. This is true love. A true friend is one who gives their life for another. Deists do not accept science glorifies God, another proof they are not saved. They are in fact right that science does not glorify their god since their god is not God. They don't even have the conviction to worship their own god since they "deny...this god is even worthy of worship." What kind of god is that? It was self-created. The 4 Step Proof substantiates itself all the way, so sinning bearing false witness is just mindless self-declaration. For example, you said "your essay offers no explanation why" God of the Bible trumps the deism god. Though I have just explained it here, I have also said the reason in the Proof: "Bible fulfills this condition as revealed through Christ being sinless and giving His life as the only begotten Son of God for forgiveness of sins and giver of eternal life. Each dispensation, the leading conscience on the planet has always been what God of the Bible has revealed ever since Adam and Even in written records by Moses (this can be detailed further by comparisons and is not necessary to go into here; but, do state it as fact for your own examination). This leading explanation, conscience and mind of God reveals how the universe came to be, why, and what the purpose is for us. None can compare to these answers." And, "I know the atheist/agnostic question is if God is uncreated why can't something else, anything else, be uncreated? But, if you ask this, then you have to be intellectually honest with yourself, and do a comparison to this "anything else" with Jesus Christ. There is no comparison. Christ wins hands down every time given His nature and conduct."

    By presuming that God, if he exists, is the God of your particular religion and so many other attributes without supporting argument is a simple case of begging the question. However, because this particular conception of God is central to your essay, and you beg the question to such extremes, you undermine the whole of your essay significantly. Your essay is not intended as a Four-step Proof for God, but more specifically as a Four-step Proof for the Christian God; but seeing as you presume the truth of Christianity without rigorously proving it, then you’ve not offered a Four-step Proof for the Christian God in the least. All of your appeals to Biblical stories, verses, and so on are constructed on a foundation of question begging, but they do not stand up on their own; the moment someone like me takes a look at your Four-Step Proof for the Christian God and sees you’ve presumed the Christian God from the very start, your proof falls apart at step 0. Your comments are only persuasive to people who already believe in your conception of God, but to no one else.
    After the Proof was given, which it has, do not respond with begging the question, for you are begging the question by being vague, misreading. The Proof is about God of the Bible, proving Him. It is quite extreme to self-declare something without reason. In the Proof, we never say Christ is God first, but we find out that He is from the Proof. Step 3 says "Instead of making the mistake of trying to disprove something else that is not God, why not stay on topic BY NOT misreading Step 3 when you try to disprove some god or idolatry you speak of by his or its name which is not God. Simply do not bring this misreading into your attempt to refute this Proof since then you would be talking about oranges, while the proof is talking about apples" and the "4 Step Proof agrees with the Word as the Proof does not specifically utilize the Word directly, so as not to be blamed for assuming God existed first." Yet you blame anyway. This is wrong. Do you see how you misread Step 3 and why Step 3 is needed? It is needed because the Proof is proving God without assuming God first, and asks that you not try to disprove some god, but attempt your disproof against God of the Bible shown to be God in the Proof.

    Analyzing the universe falsely and overassuming are just the lame excuses for refusing God’s salvation because of preferring sin, selfishness and independency from God by emulating Satan. Do not be afraid to let go of your flesh when reading this.

    But now the persuasive power of your Four-Step proof has taken a nose dive, seeing as how you’ve taken the liberty to speak on behalf of non-believers. You can’t seriously believe that non-believers are just rebels who are trying to emulate Satan. Its not only a factually incorrect assessment of non-believers reasons for denying the existence of God, its vindictive and rude.
    Since God has revealed what will happen to non-believers, do not think it is I who speak on their behalf, for it is God who reveals their destination. In the deepest inner recesses of their being, they reject God for the exact same reason Satan does. This is their vindictiveness to God, which is rude. Independency from God is the cause of the fall. They are rebels, yes as was I before I was saved; as you are unsaved now, bound for hell. In layman's terms, you are a bad person who exalts himself above God.

    Many in Christendom have said there is no Proof for God. In Christ, faith is not blind. There is more than one Proof for God, but I find what you are about to read is the very best one, which has never been challenged at all since the dawn of man.

    Notes: Obviously, this first comment fits the form of a simple genetic fallacy; there is no such argument that says "X has property Y, therefore any arguments M which originate from X also have property Y"; in other words, there is no such argument that Troy being a fallible human makes his arguments fallible as well. However, with respect to Christian apologetics, this particular instance of the Genetic Fallacy is generally accepted as logically valid, and I’d expect if Troy is anything like a typical Christian apologist, he’d accept it without further argument.
    Since Christians do not accept genetic fallacies, saying they do does not make them do. Let go of your expectations, since they are wrong. I am a Christian, for I need not qualify myself. Many who say they are apologists in fact are not even Christians, though they may say they are, but God says there are many who try to look like the wheat, but are tares unsaved (Matthew 13) operating in the sphere of the kingdom of heaven. The reason why X (you are unsaved) is because of property Y (calling Jesus a liar and rejecting the 4 Step Proof for God); ergo, M (your) arguments are not always wrong from you, but this one is, since the Proof proves Jesus.

    Troy may have one avenue for disagreement, where he could say that the books of the Bible were authored by humans, but their divine inspiration makes them infallible. Of course, this would only complicate his argument for two reasons: The claim that the Bible is infallible and divinely inspired is spurious at best. He’d be suggesting that he was being divinely guided as he typed his proof, which is another spurious claim.
    Self-declarations of spurious without reason is not a reason. The Proof is given by the Holy Spirit since it does not come from me. As the Holy Spirit spoke in the Word, so revelation flows from the word of God, which includes this Proof. It is so powerful in fact that it makes no mention of God first, but proves God. To prove this, see the 4 Step Proof.

    Step 1, in a nutshell, is simply Troys’ way of saying "the universe has been around for a finite amount of time".
    It is not merey said, but proven in Step 1.

    Step 1 - Why is eternally evolving in the past of cause and effect (do not confuse this with the limitedness of evolution, the physical science, since the amoeba) NOT TRUE, in the physical realm (material nature), biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically; that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity.

    The above paragraph is not phrased very well at all, so here is my translation: Troy is stating that humans evolve from a sinful state to a sinless state; he says if humans have been around for an infinite amount of time, we would be perfect; but because we are still sinful, we have only been around for a finite amount of time.
    It is phrased well, so much so, by observing what was said with what you said, exposes what you said as misreading what was said. Nothing is said about being created in a sinful state, only that if a state of sin was entered into, it would not take an eternity to come out of it. If you read it this way, you would be non-overassuming. Later we discover through the Proof, man was created perfect without sin since Jesus was the second man or last Adam, and the Proof proves Jesus is God. Also, know why the first Step is worded this way, in order to address scores of lame reasonings people put forth, which FSTDT's statement does not equip itself with. I do this out of courtesy more than anything else.

    Of course, I agree the universe is only a finite number of years old, but Troys’ methodology is utterly bizarre: in order for his argument to work, he must presume that humans have existed since the beginning of time. Or, at the very least, he must assume that living things have been evolving for eternity. But there is no reason to make that presumption.
    Even if we allow that the universe’s existence extends infinitely into the past, it says nothing about whether humans should be sinless.
    It is bizarre to misread so easily. The Proof does not require to assume humans existed since the beginning of time, for as the Proof states, "biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically." Do you see why these words were given, to stop dead in its tracks the above argument by FSTDT? It is quite important to note in Step 1 the law of "cause and effect." The past of an eternal cause and effect, does not itself say anything about sin, so that is why we must observe the NOW, to see that we do sin, and exponentially our progression will not take another 6000 years to reach perfection. This is all stated already integral to Step 1.

    There are a number of ways we can account for sinful people in an infinite universe: For instance, we could imagine that planets have come into existence at all different points of time across the timeline of the universe, and that each of those civilizations has existed for only a finite amount of time in the infinitely existing universe; that would certainly explain the existing sin in the infinite universe. In this way, an infinitely existing universe is consistent with civilizations that have only existed for a finite amount of time.
    FSTDT already said he does not believe the universe is infinite from the past. Be "not doubletongues" (1 Tim. 3.8). Coming into existence does not explain sin. Sin is not defined by existence, but by the act of sinning. Step 1 holds true, that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, we would have an eternity to be perfected. Any made in God's image for the sake of an eternity of the past, would have had an eternity to be perfected "according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity."

    We could also imagine a universe which has recurring Bangs and Crunches, which cycle for eternity. So that, the reason why sin still exists is because no civilization has ever had a chance to evolve for an infinite period of time; each Bang and Crunch causes everything in the universe to start all over again.
    Step 1 again, covers this proposal (dozens and dozens of other previously made this attempt already), since all bangs and crunches have a cause and an effect. The reason why FSTDT is going to be deleted and his IP banned is because, he really does not offer anything new. It is better that he is given one response to see how he misreads and overassumes, and leave it at that. Moreover, scientists today do not believe there will be a crunch because dark energy is more powerful pushing out that dark matter and matter gravitate inward. Since the big bang the universe has been expanding at an exponential rate. Even if there was a crunch, man's existence would expand beyond any crunch restrictions for man would have reached a state of sinlesness (sinlessness is not bound by such restrictions). God can't annihilate the soul made in His image for this would be annihilating Himself which is unrighteous and impossible. God's image can never be destroyed - God being uncreated - and, that which He creates will be eternally existing, whether in hell or heaven.

    Finally, we can say that the presumption that humans evolve into a "sinless" state is unfounded. Obviously, if Troy believes in things such as original sin, then he cannot believe by definition that humans could evolve into a sinless state; he can say that we may come closer and closer to a sinless state, but never achieve it no matter if they’ve existed for eternity or not.
    As calculus goes, reaching the approximation of the state of sinlessness may be taken as sinlessness. It is akin to saying there is God, but we will never become God, though we will come as close to as God desires us to be. Also, not all humans, only those humans who are saved will reach this point. The rest of the dead will be separated from God for eternity, though not annihilated. Due to original sin approximately 6000 years ago, the progression that we have seen will not take another 6000 years to reach sinlessness. Original sin, if it is true (it is), requires creation since before sinning there is a perfectly sinless being. Nothing happens all by itself sinlessly (Step 2) and God creates perfectly (Gen. 1.1). Thus, God created.

    All three scenarios painted above are a plausible counter-argument to Troys’ claim. Although, point 3 is probably the most powerful one that Troy will accept; if he accepts point 3, then obviously he must reject his premises for step 1 of his proof for God.
    All three of these arguments as has been shown have been destroyed; therefore, we may discard them from further consideration.

    However, Troys’ argument is not actually "debunked", he simply had a bad reason for explaining why the universe is a finite age. A better explanation is by simple appeal to what scientists called the "Heat Death": The ’heat-death’ of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind. The universe as a whole is a closed system, so energy is always being converted into useless heat, and eventually all energy will become useless heat. The fact Heat Death hasn’t happened yet is a good reason to indicate why the universe is not eternal.
    The reason why the universe has a beginning and will subside is because this is the nature of nature in God's creation. But this is no reason to suspect the end of all things, for in it being created we see intelligent design, and that intelligence surely would not want all things to end mindlessly without purpose or reason. This is a better explanation than any other. Nothing compares. The reason presented by FSTDT is not adequete because if it is expanding and contracting it is still existing always anyway without anything saying if it started at some point. We are thus left with Step 1 still remaining as strong as it was originally when it was first presented. And so we conclude that since we still sin, we have not had an eternity of the past of cause and effect to be perfected. Ergo, God created. God did it. Praise the Lord!

    We are referring to only man, not animals, and only those men and woman who are saved. One observes an exponential curve in our development, not just technologically, but also in our conscience, historically and scientifically undeniable. For example, it is no longer common practice, except in Islam, to sacrifice children on altars to their god or gods. In a very simple way we can say it this way: we will not keep killing each other for another million years.

    There is, however, one way that no humans will be killing each other in 1 million years: if humans no longer exist, as if by killing ourselves off. It is not necessarily true that humans will evolve into a sinless state.
    There is no reason to think man will kill himself off, though Satan tries, and men under Satan propose such a thing to try.

    If anything, we will evolve into a state where we neglect the teachings of the Bible more and more; in fact, this very phenomena is prevalent in politics. Politicians have noticed that as time passes, we become more liberal:

    - Where at first women could not work outside the home, now they can be CEOs.
    - Where women could not show an inch of skin, women can wear very revealing clothes in public.
    - Where pornography was a taboo, its mainstream.
    - Where homosexuality was a criminal offense, it is becoming a major civil rights issue.
    - Where animals were regularly killed and eaten, we may come to recognize their rights as autonomous feeling beings in the future.
    The Bible teaches equality for women, so we see this being fulfilled from God's very Word. Politics will be one way this can be effected positively through God's common grace. Can you say amen to this? Awomen too! Pornography is opposite; this is a bad thing. Except, it does not occur in God's children as much or at all. Homosexuality is a sin, so like Sodom and Gomorrah before the return of Christ in the Great Tribulation we should expect this to happen more and more. Then, Christ reigns with an "iron rod" in Person with His overcomers. Do you see the need for Christ's return as Satan uses all these things before he is cast into the pit for "1000 years" (Rev. 20.3) so "that he should deceive the nations no more." Killing off species is also the sin of the world which is occuring in greater amounts today; but, in some places some amazing things are happening by the grace of God. In some countries, for example, in Africa the population of elephants is increasing substantially because of the ownership rights to allow hunting, but charging a fee for it. This legitimizes the illegality of killing elephants to punish those who do not pay for a license to hunt. This idea was never even considered before. This is a positive progression. Consequently, elephant populations are rising dramatically. Talk about a mystery of God's creation!

    We may be an evolving civilization, but there is no indication that we will evolve into a sinless civilization. It may be the opposite: we may evolve into a civilization that makes rules without regard to what God has commanded sinful or not.
    By taking the progression we have witnessed so far, we can discern scientifically and spiritually that it will not take another 6000 years to reach sinless perfection. Ergo, your presumption is debunked. Many more scientific studies will show this to be true in addition to the example I gave regarding sacrificing children to gods like they do in Islam.

    Not only is Troys’ prediction flatly contradicted by the very teachings of the Bible itself (i.e. the story of Noah begins by noting how withing 10 generations, man had become so corrupted that they needed to be destroyed), but its unscriptural. There are no verses in the Bible that indicate humans will evolve into a sinless state; this is Troys’ unfounded presumption. Certainly, if God exists, he would not appreciate Troy inventing his own rules for the sinful nature of humans that do not appear in the Bible. His prediction is based on a heretical interpretation of scripture.
    The lives in Noah's day over 10 generations is a small sample which reflects the consequence of sin. But look what happens, they find new ground, new beginnings. And from this, a much cleaner state of living arises, so much so that God promises He will never do that to mankind again. This is part of the exponential positive progression. This flooding was done before Noah's day on a greater scale way back in Gen. 1.2 when God made the earth desolate because of the sin of the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages. This was when Lucifer fell and brought 1/3 of the angels down with him, corrupting the beings at the time, which turned into the demons. God disembodied their spirits into the deep. While that was a global flood, the flood in Noah's day was a local flood. In the measure of the flood itself we see an exponential progression in the improvement of man's conscience. Wow! I like being challenged, as I had not realized this example before. Many other ideas are coming into view as well such as the age of man now is much less than it was previously from sin, yet now in the past century it is on the rise and it is not uncommon for someone to live 100 years of age. The Bible says man will be expected to live no less than 100 years in the coming millennial kingdom, but if a man does not make it to 100 it is directly due to his sinnning in the millennium. This is the exponential progression of man's conscience causing him to live longer. In the NT, sinlessness is to be attained. Sin is conducted by the power of death. The law of sin leads to the law of death. The law of sin is compelled to do things against God, while the law of death makes one unable to do things for God.

    "And death and hades [not hell] were cast into the lake of fire [hell]. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire [hell] " (Rev. 20.13). Sin leads to death, and if there is no more death, it is because there was no more sin. "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (21.4). It is heretical to try intepret the Scriptures without the Holy Spirit: "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2.13).

    Troy obviously does not believe the words he is saying in the first place, given his position that Christ’s martydom was required to atone for the sins of man. If Troy believes that we will evolve into sinless beings, then he would be conceding that those humans are sinless like Christ himself (a heresy in Christianity). Moreso, he would be conceding that humans can evolve away the stain of original sin (another heresy), and an impossibility which undermines his proof’s first step altogether.
    I believe the words I am saying in the first place for these are words given by the Holy Spirit (they agree) that I share with you because I love you as my Father has loved me. Christ's death was a not a martyrdom. Christ's death was an atonement. If I die for Christ, it is martyrdom. It is a heresy to say God's children will not be sinless as Christ is sinless, for Jesus is the firstfruits of many who will be like Him in sinlessness, though not God since only God is God. God and the Lamb will be at the center of the new city in the new earth, while the resurrected-saved will be pillars of the new city and the new earth. You sound jealous FSTDT. Make note I did not say you will evolve into a sinless being, since you will be separated from God for all eternity in hell. Only God's children will be sinless. This is too distasteful for you, so what can God do but eternally separate you forever from His sons and daughters! This is Christianity. This is true. This is not a heresy. Your view is a heresy. Evolve means causes and effects for the purpose of the Proof. We do not overcome our sin nature by mere causes and effects, but by the grace of God in being perfected. Day by day the Holy Spirit worketh in the believer to bear his crosses daily and put to death a little more through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on that eternal cross. Man can not obsolve his own sins. It is only by the mercy and forgiveness of your Lord and Savior does God bring us into His fold. This is in keeping with the first Step of the 4 Step Proof, consistently showing that by observation of nature, we may see the exponential progression of man's conscience and the glory of creation to know that God did it! Thank the Lord for His common grace as well as His grace specific to His children for whom He wants to walk with for eternity out of the glory of making us in His image. He chose us because in being made in His image, we choose Him. Though you are made in God's image, God has not chosen you because you do not choose Him. How truly sad for you.

    If Troy intends to prove the finite existence of human beings by their continuing sinful nature, he has failed to do so. Based on the premises that Troy has offered for his proof, Step 1 falls apart under the weight of his own theology. If he does not accept this refutation, then he is a heretic.
    I was not trying to prove the finite existence of human beings, for as I have said before, annihilation of human beings is not possible. However, we were created in God's image. You can say we were not eternally evolving from the past, but we will eternally evolve into the future. Step 1 remains solid as it always has. If it were not the case it could have been shown otherwise. Heretics accusing falsely is what non-believers do because they are hostile to God and His children. This is so true that in the coming Tribulation they will try to exterminate us. But praise God for the promise of resurrection at the last day (1 Thess. 4.15-17).

    This is the second in a series of replies to Troys’ Four Step Proof For God. Troys’ second step is basically a long way of saying "The universe needs a cause, that cause is God". But lets look at it closer: If, in response, an unsaved evolutionist, cosmologist, atheist or agnostic (thinly veiled atheism since a non-choice is still a rejection of God because it is not an acceptance) comes to you and says the big bang (or other natural means) is the beginning, again, that is false also since material (nature) doesn’t happen all by itself. There is always a cause to the effects in nature. Nothing in nature happens all by itself.
    Take a deeper look. The 2nd Step more specifically says since nothing in nature happens all by itself, thus, the "universe needs a cause." God did it! Even in explaining this Proof we show the cause and effects of explaining the truth.

    Just that simple, eh? I’m afraid not. You’re again begging the question, presuming without argument that the Big Bang itself is an effect from a prior cause. The confusion is being caused by an intuitive belief about the nature of time and the universe: that the universe exists at some point in time. However, as is frequently the case, our intuitive beliefs rarely accurately describe anything about the universe.
    Yes. Just that simple. Don't be afraid. You're begging the question by misreading, thus producing from self false conclusions by your corrupted intuition indwelt by the evil spirit. The 2nd Step does not presume the big bang is an effect from a prior cause, but it is the case because nothing in nature happens all by itself. This is the point of Step 2. This is not founded on intuition without substance, but intuition corroborating what is factually observed in nature, that nothing happens all by itself. The part of intuition that is non-overassuming shows us nothing in nature happens all by itself. Your intuition deceives you. There is no puff the magic dragons it happened all by itself.

    The universe does not exist at some point in time, but rather time itself exists within the universe. Its a statement that sounds very unintuitive, but its mathematically coherent. Just like there is no space outside of the universe, there is no time outside of the universe. The problem is that you’ve not shown that the universe is an effect of any prior cause, even in principle; no prior causes can exist outside of time, so your comment that the universe is an effect of a prior cause is logically incoherent.
    The universe did exist at some point in time as well as time itself existed too as part of or even prior to the universe. In either case the laws of cause and effect are observed so that nothing in nature happens by itself, not even time. Each momemt in time has a time before it that caused the time following. This is mathematically coherent. In principle, nothing in nature happens all by itself, ergo, God did it! Time itself was caused, and causes can exist outside time, for in order for time to exist in needed to be caused. Ergo, God did it! Thus, it is illogical to say that the universe is not an effect, for no effect is without a cause: since the universe is obviously here (an effect), it had to have been caused. This is what we mean in Step 1: the causes and effects of evolving "in its more encompassing meaning." God is the causeless cause. See this in Christ.

    I have to point out again that our intuitive expectations do not adequately define physics, and that the statement "everything effect in physics has a cause" is an intuitive statement. It may not be strictly true that physics is entirely deterministic at the very tiny level, but rather probabilistic. In fact, there are some physical processes that we know today that are acasual: For more than a decade, physicists attempted to understand radioactivity on a deterministic basis and their lack of success was not taken to imply that the phenomenon defied the law of causality. Only with the emergence of quantum mechanics was it recognised that radioactivity is a truly acausal and indeterministic ph[e]nomenon.
    Perhaps its unintuitive to say that radioactivity is acausal, but it is mathematically coherent nonetheless. The occurrence of radioactivity demonstrates the existence of at least one effect in nature that does not have a cause, so your insistence that "always a cause to the effects in nature" is false.
    All probabilities have a cause. This is not to say God predetermines them but He foreknows them. It is entirely illogical considering trillions of things with causes (not one without) then to claim an effect is without a cause. I can think of no greater overassuming besides that of calling Jesus a liar. There is no such thing as acausals. If it were true it could be shown. This is merely fantasy. It is like opening up a novel at chapter 2. There are no physical processes that are acausal. This shows you how bizarre and absurd the claims of those hostile to Christ will get. They will stoop this low without a shred of proof. This is blind faith towards Satan. The very fact that it is a process means it was proceded by something to cause the procession. Quantum mechanics does not show radioactivity to be without a cause. Self-declaring it selfishly does not make it so. Just because you can not understand such complicated things, does not mean it is without a cause. We recently have discovered quarks and strings; these being causes which before we never could have fathomed. Mathematically, it is not coherent to say radioactivity is without a cause. The math does not agree with the Satan worshipper. It just goes to show that claiming radio activity happens all by itself, shows the weakness of your argument. To explain this in a simple way, when a nuclear bomb is exploded, radio activity is emitted. There was no radio activity, then there was, because of splitting an atom. You even admit it is indeterminate now, which does not mean we will not always know causes regarding radioactivity. Don't you feel arrogant by saying just because you admit you don't know the cause therefore it must not have a cause? It is like you are trying to be God when you do that. This is a conversation with a dullard, requiring banning. These points by the unsaved have all been made before. Nothing new is introduced.

    Step 2 should be rejected because the claim that the universe is an effect of some prior cause (that is, something happening in time before time existed in the first place) is logically incoherent, and your original claim that everything in nature has a cause is false. You’ve not shown that the universe has a cause, and certainly not that the cause has to be God.
    If something in nature was without a cause or if time was causeless it for you to believe it, you could have some basis to believe it, but you have none. You have not even come close to doing so. The weight of the evidence is against you. Thus, it is illogical to reject Step 2 on this basis. We have shown that not only does the universe need a cause because nothing happens all by itself, but also that the cause must be the causeless cause God because only Jesus was sinless. No man is sinless except Jesus who was both God and man. Simple truth is not unreasonable, but it is unloved.

    Material (or the smallest of particles) only knows how to react to the elements and its environment (or other small particles, waves, strings, quarks, even smaller). It does not make a choice. But God does choose, and He chose for a reason.

    I have two things to point out: 1) Talk about begging the question! According to Charles Taliaferro: If successful, the [first cause] argument would provide a reason for thinking there is one such being of extraordinary power responsible for the existence of the cosmos. At best, it may not justify a full picture of the God of religion (a First Cause would be powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent), but it would none the less challenge naturalistic alternatives and bring one closer to theism.Troys’ argument is identical to various First Cause arguments that have been argued for centuries. However, Troys’ conception of God is a religious God, and First Cause arguments cannot prove the existence of any particular kind of religious God.
    You should not beg the question. First cause, as we have seen, is necessary (see Step 2), which leads to the necessity of God being uncreated who created as well as He is omnipotent in the Godhead (Father, Son, Spirit). God must be of religion, and we all need religion, for religion is the worship of something. We need to worship, which is not for God, but a gift God gives us to give us purpose to be with Him, otherwise all would be dead works and there would be no reason to live without vanity. We do not argue first cause, but we know it, in each century, and tell it to you to help lead you to Christ. Only someone utterly arrogant would denounce the human history of worship (religion), worshipping being the very meaning of religion. There is a need. Who can deny it?

    And as we see Christ sinless and perfect sacrifice for atonement, we know the creator is Christ. He said He was the creator. He did not lie, for He is sinless. He did no wrong. To say otherwise is a contradiction.

    The movement from "First God" to "God of the Bible" is an unjustified leap of logic. But there is another non-sequitor evident in the essay: At the very beginning of Troys’ essay, he writes "Inordinate analysis and mental gymnastics are total vanity to make the case that God created". Troys’ move from "there must be a first cause" to "that first cause created the universe for a reason" is definitely mental gymnastics (I presume by "reason", he means God’s intent to create the universe). It does not follow that a first cause creates the universe for a reason, that is a non-sequitor.
    We, as Christians, do not move from First God to God of the Bible since there is no First God, because God is uncreated. He is causeless, so He is not first. He existed in the eternity of the past before what was first. From the Uncreated eternally existing we discover Jesus to be God because of what Jesus said and did and was prophesied of Him which was fulfilled and finished on the cross. To suggest otherwise in the light of Christ is a non sequitor without the dash. It is not mental gymnastics to accept that there is a first cause since all we need to do is look up at the mountains and the stars and ask, did we do that? No. God did it! Praise God! If God explains it this simply in the Word of God, is it really that difficult to understand? Even a babe in Christ gets it. Even a small child can understand. Therefore, to claim this is a non-sequitor given this evidence, is itself a non-sequitor due to inordinate stirring in your head, forsaking your spirit, in mental gymnastics.

    You can see why I have pretty much stopped taking entries from peoples' submissions because they don't introduce anything new. They just repeat same old material which has been shown to be false over and over ad infinitum untoward hell.

    There are many ways that the universe could be created without any reason: A deistic God could have created the universe, then abandoned his creation immediately. There is no contradiction in saying that his kind of God created the universe, but he did not create the universe to serve any purpose or reason. The universe could have been created by the death of God (perhaps his death released the energy that became the Big Bang). This conception of God is consistent with saying that God created the universe, but without any reason.
    As stated before to your cohort, the universe was not abandoned in its creation for such is vanity, and Christ is not vain. Even if it was created in vain, the creator of allowing this fallen state would still be in control as is Christ who created the creator. This is where Step 4 (dealing with the supernatural) comes in by saying if there was an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, you would have been sinless by now, having had an eternity to be perfected. Ergo, you know God created! Lovingly! Your rejection of God's love is due to the fact that in your spirit indwells the evil spirit from the fall in which you were born into, but God has not abandoned you. It only feels that way because you have not been born-again to know God's love intimately. He has provided redemption through His only begottone Son. Your rejection of His Son is your choice.

    We clearly see deism is a lie. God being uncreated can not die. Christ was resurrected. To understand God's plan before the foundations of the world to bring Jesus into the world to atone for the sins of the world, understand the way of the Lord and the council of the Godhead.

    The problem with Troys' argument is his presumption that his particular conception of God is the only conception of God, which of course is false provided by the many theists who are not members of his own religion. His claim that a God must have created the universe is false, provided by the many other conceptions of God who could have created the universe without any reason.
    By not being a member of my own religion is not the basis to be proven right. That is nonsensical. We have proven God of the Bible through each of the 4 Steps which is without presumption. Thus, to disagree with Christians, is a presumption since Jesus did not lie and we know the Creator is uncreated. All other conceptions of what people think is God are proven to be false. For example, we have totally destroyed the deism argument by the loving act of Christ to die on the cross for our sins not in vain. By comparison, Christ is victorious. You can show this comparison with 40,000+ adherents of the world.

    2) Let’s ignore the fact that there are ways a God can create the universe without a reason. Let’s focus on Troys' statement itself that "He chose [to create the universe] for a reason". On making this statement, we can ask "what reason caused God to create the universe", and "what reason caused the reason which caused God to create the universe", and so on back to infinity. Troy has essentially condemned himself to the infinite regress that he was trying to avoid in the first place. His Step 2 for God breaks down absolutely.
    There are not ways God can create the universe without a reason, so it is of no value to suggest such. If there was, it could have been shown. There is no break down of God creating for His own reason, which He discloses in the Word. He created out of His glory to walk with those He created in His image who chose His life by grace. Juliet condemns hereself for rejecting not only God's love, but God Himself who created her.

    If God’s reason is uncaused, then it is an causeless cause...but Troy defined God as "God who is uncreated, that is, the One Whom is, in fact, Causeless", does this mean that God himself and God’s uncaused reasons are both God? Is Troy a polytheist, and does he worship uncaused reasons? He’d look really silly if he did! This fact is inconsistent with Troys’ own theology, so step 2 falls apart.
    You misread. God's reason is not uncaused. For He causes the reason. God's reason is His reason. God is God. God causes His reason. When God chooses for a reason, this does not intruduce gods: polytheism. False reasoning would. The arguments are getting dumb and dumber. The way Satan works is to first misread something, then draw false conclusions by that misreading to bear false witness as the false accuser. This is his confusion instilled in others. This is what Juliet did. Since I never said God's reason is uncaused, though God is uncaused, we can simply hand back to Juliet her misinterpretation, which is actually her attempts at being cunning. Do you see how well the Holy Spirit can expose the mistakes of others with a little patience (this is our responisibility to be patient)?

    The misapplied use in accusing of a fallacy of composition leads us, ironically, to the conclusion that God created since there is no first cause that is causeless for the creation of the universe except that which is outside the composition, rendering God the uncreated causelessness

    I’ve already shown that if God exists, there is at least one other uncreated causelessness (that is, whatever cause God to create the universe). However, Troy is missing the point about why atheists say that God could have been caused by an infinite regress of gods himself, probably because he is unfamiliar with the actual cosmological argument that he is using.
    Since, as was shown, there can be nothing that caused God to create except God Himself, we can discard any self-declarations about multiple causelessnesses. Step 4 immediately destroys the "infinite regress" of gods since if there was an eternity of the past of gods createing gods, then we would have had an eternity to be perfected, but we still sin. Ergo, God did it. It is because I am aware of the cosmological argument, that Step 4 rounds out the 4 Step Proof.

    I’ll write out a simplistic version of the cosmological argument for him: 1. Everything that exists has a cause. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. 5. So there must be an uncaused cause. 6. That uncaused cause is God.
    Amen.

    However, when Troy says God exists, and that he is uncaused, he immediately invalidates the first premise of his own cosmological argument. If he must rewrite the first premise as "everything which exists has a cause except God", then he is using ad hoc reasoning. And if he must rewrite the first premise "everything which has a beginning has a cause", then he traps himself into a corner in which he must try to argue that prior causes can exist before time exist.
    The 4 Step Proof is deeper than the cosmological argument because the Proof deals with sin and conscience whereas the cosmological argument does not. Morever, no doubt you can see the 4 Step Proof goes into greater detail. The 4 Step Proof leads us to know that God exists and that He is causeless. Nothing about the 4 Step Proof is ad hoc, that is, improvised. It is very specific and substantial. The first step in the cosmological argument is similar to the 4 Step Proof for God ONLY IF that which exists is all that we see in nature, including time itself. The reason Step 1 is first in the Proof is because we need to establish that there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. We need to establish this first to show why we still sin: since the universe has not been going on forever, the only other possibility is God did it. And we do not sin forever, but it is for a short while. So, after realizing this in Step 1, we find in Step 2 that nothing happens all by itself, which agrees with Step 1; thus, God did it. Everything that has a beginning does have a cause except that which is causeless, being God Himself (the subject of the Proof as stated in Step 3). These causes and effects include all things, the universe and even time itself. Before even time itself, the reason time exists, is because of the causeless Creator God of the Bible who chose to create it.

    Theists’ insistence that God is uncaused instantly invalidates the claim that "everything which exists needs a cause", so either the premise "everything which exists needs a cause" is false (the cosmological argument breaks down) or God’s existence implies he too is caused. If its not true that everything which exists needs a cause, then the arguments that the universe needs a cause is false. Step 2 falls apart consequently.
    You are arguing against the cosmological argument, not the 4 Step Proof. For this you are banned. You should have started another thread. Everything in nature needs a cause, for everything in nature is created. Since God is not created He need not be caused. Step 2 does not say everything that exists needs a cause, but that everything in the universe has a cause. God exists. But, God has no cause since the Proof is talking about God of the Bible who is causeless. You can see why Step 3 is valuable because you are not arguing against God of the Bible, but some god. What is true of the god you are arguing against does not hold true for the God of the Bible. You are trying to relate the first step in the cosmological argument with Step 2 in the 4 Step Proof for God, but they are not the same.

    The Bible says if you seek God with all your heart, then you will surely find Him. It’s the person who wants to know God that God reveals Himself to.

    Troy is begging the question again. There is no indication that the Bible tells us anything about the nature or existence of God, Troy assumes this as a fact without argument. If someone were to counter this claim with "God’s existence is not revealed through the Bible, but through H P Lovecraft" without argument, then there would be no reasons for preferring Troys’ unestablished claim that God is revealed through the Bible over the equally unestablished claim that God is revealed through H P Lovecraft. Without any reasons for preferring either claim over the other (and infinite number of holy texts for that matter), how can we say that either claim has any explanatory power at all? If the claim has no explanatory power, how can it be used to explain the origins of the universe? Quite simply, it can’t.
    I do not argue. I have no need to argue when I tell you the truth. God throughout the Word shows us His nature, that is, His Holiness, that He is loving, kind, merciful, righteous (His way of doing things), among many many other things. For example, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph. 1.4). And Jesus said, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" (Rev. 1.11). There are many other verses, but you can see the point, Jesus is claiming He is God. And since Jesus never sinned, we have no reason to believe He lied. Thus, God created and Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Godhead. No proofs exist of H P Lovercraft being uncreated, we can disregard it. By comparison we see Jesus without sin, documented extensively in over 100 parchments both from secular and non-secular of the first century. We see men who were with Jesus died proclaiming witnessing His resurrection and receiving forgiveness from God. There is no greater proof. There is a lawyer in the guiness book of records who won over 245 cases in a row, and He said the proof for the Gospel of Christ is the best proof he has ever seen. I agree. A "craft" by the way is an object without intelligence. We know this, so this argument of an object being the uncreated creator is illogical. The Word of God is uncreated for the Word is Jesus Christ (John 1.1). This is the explanatory power you seek. Now will you heed it? If you do not you are going to hell.

    I believe the above paragraph adequately shows that Troys’ unestablished premises have no explanatory power for anything, which by implication means they cannot explain the origins of the universe. As Troys’ intended his essay to be a set of reasons explaining the existence of God and origins of the universe, yet his assertions have no explanatory power at all, then the thesis of his essay (providing an explanation for why God exists and created the universe) breaks down as a consequence.
    Troys’ proof is looking less and less like a proof of God, and more and more like a description of his inner personal beliefs.
    The above paragraph shows the explanatory power of the Word of God which we know is God's Word by what we are to observe, done so by the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God. Thus, the 4 Step Proof for God remains solid and unphased. Juliet's efforts are simply here personal beliefs which are her right to believe. God will not coerce her into receiving His salvation. Otherwise, she would not be made in the image of God to reject or to come to the cross to receive Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

    Consider for example that the existence of a person does not explain a fire; various facts about that person might explain the fire. Similarly, the existence of God does not explain the universe, but various facts about God explains the universe; by conceding that God needs a reason to create the universe, Troy condemns himself to an infinite regress of reasons for reasons for reasons ad infinitum.
    It does not follow that God needing His own reason to create the universe without vanity, would condemn anyone for accepting this truth. Since as we have shown there is not an infinite past of cause and effect we know then there is not an infinite number of causes. There is first God's initial reason. At some point He chose to create. Juliet condemns herself, because she uses this false reasoning which does not follow, to reject her Creator Jesus Christ. Through various facts of God, we know God exists. And through these revelations of God we accept God, get to know God, building a personal relationship with Him. In turn He imparts more grace and strengthens our spirit with wisdom by the Holy Spirit. One of those things He shows us is why He created. He created because He wants to walk with us who are His own.

    In a nutshell, step 3 says "God is uncreated" and step 4 says "No one created God". Although step 3 and 4 take up about 50% of the proof, they are composed almost entirely of Troys’ preaching and condescending to non-members of his religion, he’s not making comments that contribute to a proof of God.
    Step 3 says the Proof is talking about God of the Bible being uncreated, not some gods. Step 4 says there can not be an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, giving the reason why. You are misrepresenting the Steps. The rest of the words in Step 3 and 4 are vital components to show, therefore, further, that the only possible reasonable conclusion is that the God of the Bible is our Creator and He is uncreated. When I tell you these truths it is not to belittle you, but certainly I have to condescend down to your level to by listening to your complaints and addressing them specifically as I have done so. Since you are going to hell and are not saved, whereas I am saved and going to heaven, I must not to fall into your sin, but I must be willing to listen to your issues so as to give you an appropriate answer. This is what the Proof does. If you then reject the Proof it is because you condemn yourself to hell of your volition. Notice too that these words are not even preachy but help you understand whom the Proof is pointing to as the only One. You should let go of your polemic self-declarations for they are not helping you but betraying you.

    Troy defines God is the uncreated creator. But that’s it. Troy has only provided a definition of God, but definitions can exist comfortably apart from the objects they define; for instance, I can define a unicorn as a beautiful magical horse with a single horn sticking out of its head, but all I’ve stated is a definition, the definition itself need not actually correspond to something actual in the universe. Similarly, Troy has failed to show that his definition corresponds to a being which actually exists; whatever God he is talking about only "exists" linguistically, it only "exists" in philosophy (actually, I wouldn’t say it exists in philosophy, this proof has been so bad that it hardly merits being called philosophy in the first place).
    Definitions that are false can not exist comfortably from the objects of truth they attempt to define falsely. Even definitions that are true, but not flowing from the truth of the object are themselves will also be lacking because they are an independency from the object in their defining. Since we know that the universe did not happen all by itself, we know it was created. Ergo, the uncreated created. And all along the way through the Proof we see that only Jesus fulfills the requirements of the uncreated due to His sinlessness. God expands all things since God created all things. However He can be expressed, He provides that mode of understanding. The Proof is not a philosophy at all of men's minds for it runs much deeper in the intuitive conscience of the spirit. It is very simple, but very true. Unicorns are fantasy creatures. But it is no fantasy that nothing in nature happens all by itself or that we still sin, which shows us that there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effect, otherwise we would have been without sin by now.

    You can see why it is not desirable to keep taking responses from people regarding the Proof because they are such futile efforts to disprove the Proof. They get down right boring as heck. I decided to take this response only because the person did put so much effort into it, even though it is still plagued with so much error. I did not want to leave the person high and dry, but provide my answer here as a help which he can refer to at his leisure.

    There is one particular statement that Troy makes which is absolutely mind boggling: We are grateful to God through His wisdom and revelation for this 4 Step Proof for God that not only proves God exists, but undeniably points to the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit in the 66 books of the Word of God (the Bible).
    Praise the Lord! No doubt is mindboggling since your spirit is dead to God.

    My jaw dropped when I read that. That is the most presumptuous thing I’ve ever read in my life. Troys’ has not shown that God has anything to do with the Bible, his only explanation is a personal attack on non-believers, saying that their spirit is "dead to God". Troy has not shown that God, if he exists, is the God of the Bible, but asserted it without argument. He is begging the question to such extremes that he undermines his entire proof. Cosmological arguments cannot be used to proof a particular God of a religion, but only as a proof for some kind of deistic God.
    This is not a presumption as you say, but gratitude for God's proofs of Himself in our relationship with Him. The Bible is the Word and the Word is Jesus and Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily and Jesus is God because only Jesus was sinlessly perfect, the perfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. This is true love that He would do this for us to save us from sin, death and perdition. The Proof proves God is uncreated which points to Jesus as the uncreated creator for Jesus never lied when He said He created. I do not attack you in saying you are going to hell, but I tell you this because I love you and don't want you to go to hell to be eternally separated from God. I would not wish this on my worse enemy. How can you avoid going to hell if you don't realizing you are going to hell? Self-declarations against this Proof are utterly mindless. To make such self-proclamations is the ultimate of begging the question which is utterly extreme because it is without basis. Since the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible is not a cosmological argument, but a proof which God reveals to us who are born-again, you're not understanding this is expected because your spirit is dead to God and are without the Holy Spirit. You don't even realize the evil spirit is in your spirit. How could you?

    Its as if he doesn’t acknowledge the fact that not all theists are Christians much less trinitarians.
    It is not "as if," but it is a fact, not all theists are Christians; in fact, most theists are not Christians. All Christians are trinitarians, for a trinitarian is one who believes in the Trinity of God: God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit.

    There are very good reasons for suspecting that God has nothing to do with the Bible: The existence of many other holy texts with mutually exclusive conceptions of God.
    This is not a valid argument since their conceptions are wrong as proven by the fact that they do not accept the sinless sacrifice that is Christ. One way to explain this is to say a person in a remote area of the world believes in God but never heard of Christ. Then he was presented the Word, of course He would accept Christ. This is the test. Whatever someone writes whether in antiquity or today, if it ultimately ends up rejecting Christ who was proven in the 4 Step Proof for God, then you know that person wrote in hostility towards God His creator. And since these many other texts misconstrued as being holy you admit are mutually exclusive, therefore, they can not both be true admittedly.

    The fact the Bible represents the science and philosophy of the periods it was written.
    The Bible does not represent science or philosophy, but it is wholly from God (who is never wrong) through revelation in the spirit as the Holy Spirit saw fit to reveal unto men. Science and philosophy are merely tools God provides, no matter what age we are in.

    The fact its impossible to know if one is really talking to God.
    This is not a fact. I have spoken to God thousands of times. Even now I have just spoken to God for you when I said, "God, please open the eyes of this person that can not see your love for him or her."

    The fact some disputed letters of Paul appear in the Bible.
    Men dispute, but that does not change the fact of which are God's Word and which are not.

    The Bible is very anthropocentric, and the God of the Bible is very anthromorphic. There is no indication at all that, if God exists, he cares about humans. Given that humans are highly adapted species to their environment (as opposed to suggesting that the universe was fine-tuned to suit human needs), it appears the universe was not actually created with humans in mind at all. The God of the Bible is so unjustifiably anthropocentric that he is obviously manmade fiction.
    For those who do not understand what this big word means, it means "Regarding humans as the central element of the universe" or "Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience." This is why I say don't use big words because a full sentence of simple words is better than a big word. So let us tear apart the sentence instead of the big vague word which people might have different conceptions about, then they would be arguing apples and oranges. Since man was made in the image of God, and nothing else was, we can observe this by seeing how man is distinctly different from all creation. We can do things none else can in the known universe. Also, we whom the Holy Spirit impress upon do not interpret everything exclusively in terms of human values and experience, for the objective truth is not the experience of many because they don't want to accept it. In the Bible though the object truth is accepted whether people like it or not. For example, Israel did not like it that they would be punished for hundreds of years for their sin, yet they are the ones God chose to reveal Himself to because they were the only nation that had an ear to hear. A false documented could have been created about how great Israel was, but instead we find in the Scriptures how utterly sinful they were. So much so God has given the new covenant to Christians beforehand before Israel receives her covenant promise to be the center of all nations.

    Throughout the Bible we see how much God hates sin, how much He cares for us by being so merciful and forgiving. The universe was created out of His glory in all its splendor with the ultimate objective of God to be the center of the new city in the new earth and those who are saved to be with God as pillars of the new city. Praise God!

    It always surprises me how people can't see how distinctly different we are than all of creation just by the things we have done and the most amazing miracles God performs in our lives.

    All of creation is fine tunned, but not even for man, but for God. His grand purpose is immense.

    We can not say man is the only purpose for God, but we certainly can say in our known understanding of this solar system we certainly are His main purpose. That is undeniable given man's distinctiveness and that God would break into creation to redeem us. What love! How sad that a man can not accept this loving sacrifice.

    Troy makes no further comments meriting a response, nevermind some of his FSTDT worthy jaw droppers like "Animals today kill because of man’s sin" and "Could it be said that animals were possessed since the serpent was entered into by a demon in the garden? Yes. ... up from the deep disembodied demons came to inhabit the bodies of human or animals".
    This is true. We see examples in the Scriptures of these things happening. Such simple truths cause ones jaw bones to drop. This is why I say it is not the truth that is unreasonable, but it is unloved.

    Yahweh and I agree, this is an earnest attempt at a proof, but it fails for reasons including but not limited to: factual inaccuracies and some of the most outrageous leaping in logic I’ve ever seen; it begs so many questions from beginning to end; the premises are internally inconsistent; it is preachy when it could otherwise be providing support for its arguments; and it is very condescending to non-believers.
    Yahweh and you do not agree as we have seen for you call the Son of God a liar; though, you don't have the courage to come out and use those exact words, which is certainly coy and cunning. The reason you make the many factual inaccuracies you have made as we have seen is because of your hostility to Yahweh. These were outrageous leaps of logic which I have shown to you each step of the way, begging the question. These are your internal inconsistencies and preachy for preachiness is founded in untruth regurgitated. Your pride is your condescension towards the death on the cross by the Son of God giving His life for yours and still you have the audacity to call Him a liar. Men kill, and you stand by their side in killing the only begotten Son of God. What disgrace! I can think of no greater sin than this. Instead of heeding the Christian's word when you reject the love given to you, you are rejecting all of God's children, and all prophets of the OT, even God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. What can God do but send you to hell? This is what you want.

    ...the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time.
    It is not about language or cosmology, but spirit, that is, the intuitive conscience and communion of your spirit unto salvation so that God can regenerate your spirit (inner man) by quickening your old spirit to give you a new spirit. Only then will your mind of your soul be renewed, as well as your emotion and will. Once entering into the new creation by the old man from the old creation dying on the cross, resurrection life takes hold in which one day you will be given a newly clothed spiritual body to be with God for eternity with the focus towards the new city in the new earth. This is all effected through the substitution of Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of sins as well as identification with Christ when He brings you to the cross to die and be punished with Him on the cross which gives you power over sin and the selfish self.

    the Gospels became mixed with Greco-Roman philosophy, which is loosely described as the "Hellenization of Christianity". This Hellenization is reflected in the letters of St Paul; contrary to popular opinion, he was not a gnostic. Paul was very much a cultural Greek and wrote to a Greek audience.
    The Gospels did not become mixed with Greco-Roman philosophy. If it were true it could be shown, but none put forth any credible case. Self-declarations are centered on self. Thus, hellenization is the hopes of the unregenerates like mormons or Juliet or FSTDT. Paul was not a gnostic; which is not even popular opinion. Paul was set apart from culture, and walked according to the Holy Spirit. Greek was the language of the day.

    "It’s rather like a puddle waking up one morning - I know they don’t normally do this, but allow me, I’m a science fiction writer - A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn’t it?... It must have been made to have me in it." And the sun rises, and it’s continuing to narrate this story about how this hole must have been made to have him in it. And as the sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking - and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it’s still thinking - it’s still trapped in this idea that - that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us we will continue to destroy it in the way that we have been destroying it, because we think that we can do no harm."
    Puddles are inanimate creation; without consciousness. The Bible says the old earth will be without the sea: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev. 21.1). There is not the issue of sin with a puddle. But to God, the sin of man is deadly for the man was made in His image and should not sin. Sin can not commune with God, but must die on the cross. It is the Christian who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit that knows the harm of sin, its effect on nature, because he has appreciated that he could not keep the law which points to sin and that the law points to Christ for only Christ could keep the law by not sinning. It is the man who is the sinner who calls Jesus a liar, that if he can do this, he is capable of sin that could even destroy the world. Men talk of their greatness that they value God's creation, but that is just talk. If we realize what the Word says that all of creation is for God, not even for man, only then will we treat God's creation as God desires. Those who are unsaved will never have this apperciation in their inner depths because therein lies the evil spirit who also calls Jesus a liar.

    Your proof was probably one of the more creative interpretations of the cosmological argument I've ever seen.
    Forgive me for chuckling, but as was stated, the 4 Step Proof is still not strictly a cosmological argument for the reasons given: namely, the Proof includes the matter of sin and does not start off with saying all things that exist must have a cause or even agree with this statement since God exists yet He is without cause. Can you see it really is not beneficial to pigeonhole arguments like that?
    :hilarious

    Step 1: Humans have existed for a finite amount of time, because we are imperfect. The perfection of humans is not a measurement of the age of the universe, and more significantly its possible we could have been around for an infinite amount of time and still be imperfect (your theology says our imperfection is inherent, meaning we can no more separate our imperfections from our humanity than we can separate the roundness from a sphere).
    The perfection of humans is a measurement of the age of the universe for if the universe had always been existing we would have had an eternity to be perfected, yet we still sin, showing that we we created as was the universe. As the hundreds before you, you make the same mistake of not getting past Step 1 by not examing the progression of man's exponential progression in conscience. I have said this already, but it falls on deaf ears. Instead of discussing this matter which is vital to the beginnning of the Proof it would have been better than you did not go to far away from examining this for it will help you to receive Christ into your life. As I stated previously,

    "The furthest any agnostic/atheist got never even approached getting past Step 1 in which they do not see the exponential velocity in man's conscience. I could not get anyone to confront this in any meaningful way, because it is their conscience that is the problem, the very thing they don't want to look at in their inner man or inner woman which God is showing them if they would only listen. This is why the greater portion of the Bible is the OT law which no man could keep except Jesus Christ. From this you should know you have a sin nature which is not God's nature, and realize man has taken this sin nature for himself because of disobedience to God. In a very simple way we can say it this way: we will not keep killing each other for another million years. Ergo, Step 1 shows us God created because it doesn't take forever to be perfected into sinlessness."

    We know unequivically that if the universe had existed for an eternity of the past, we would be without sin by observing the progression in the past 6000 years will not take another 6000 years to be without sin.

    Our sin nature is not inherent, so when you said I said this, you are sinning bearing false witness. This is very dull-minded for you to do this. It was not inherent for Adam to sin, but it was quite abnormal for him to be disobedient to God.

    Step 2: The universe needs a cause, that cause is God. Unfortunately, you haven't shown that the universe is actually an effect of a prior cause, and the intuitive belief that everything in nature being purely deterministic is false.
    We have shown that the universe is an effect of prior cause as Step 2 shows, nothing in nature happens all by itself; therefore, it was caused. The odds against you are less than 1 in a trillion knowing the trillions of things that have causes and effects, not one of them without a cause. Knowing that nothing in nature happens all by itself is not intuitively without foundation as is your teaching, but is realized factually by observation that nothing in nature happens all by itself. This is very simple, so simple to reject is quite bizarre of a person. This only shows how absurd the unregenerate can get.

    Step 3: You are stating that God is causeless by definition. However, this is only a definition of God, it hasn't been shown that the definition corresponds to something real in the universe.
    We are not stating God is causeless by definition, but that Step 3 is stating the Proof is about God of the Bible who is causeless as disclosed in the Bible. It is not saying the God of the Bible is the God, but that this is what the Proof is about, so please do not make the mistake of trying to disprove some other god. This is all talked about in Step 3 at great length so you would not make this error yet you still do; so why I have to repeat it here shows why you need to be banned for belligerency and obstinacy which is not conducive for discussion. We have shown that God of the Bible created simply because nothing in nature happens (this includes time itself) all by itself and there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effect considering man still sins after all this time. Then we deduce that Jesus is God because of His sinlessness and He always told the truth; yet, men who were jealous or self-powering did not want to stop their sinning and give up self for Christ. Thus, the apostles were also put to death for the love they had in Christ also. This should speak to your entire being.

    You should feel utterly ashamed of yourself that you don't stand up for Christ. You mind's thought should be utterly sickened by your beliefs. You choice should be to repent to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Will you?

    Step 4: You are stating no one created God, because you are defining him as uncreated. This is a repetition of step 3.
    No. Again you misread, your common theme. How can you try to even disprove something if you don't understand it to begin with? Step 4 says that if there was an eternity of the past of causes and effects of gods creating gods, you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but since you still sin you know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. This all stated in the 4th Step already, so the fact that I have to repeat it here shows you are more interested in being mindlessly belligerent and obstinate, then giving up self for the truth. As a result of the 4th Step we realize that God of the Bible created given Christ. Step 3 is pointing out to you not to try to disprove some god, but it is God of the Bible the 4 Step Proof is about. Step 4 is about the supernatural causes and effects, whereas Step 1 deals with nature and time. Step 3 is established, so that you can ask the question in Step 4 rightly.

    You totally misread Step 3 and Step 4. Don't be a dullard.

    I think the errors in your proof are so numerous and significant that the proof fails.
    Do you realize in all your thoughts, both you Juliet and FSTDT, that you introduced no new points? I pray that you review all the mistakes you made, that you will see you could not overturn or even find one fault with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

    Since you introduce no new arguments, repeating what others have already said shown to be wrong, you are removed. The 4 Step Proof already dealt with these items you bring up. Read the Proof.

    That is that.

  4. #4
    Sesshiro Guest

    Default

    "In Christ, faith is not blind."

    If this is true, then there is a logical reason for god to be uncreated, which would mean there is no cause for god. This alone ruins your so-called perfect proof due to the fact that it operates under the fact that every effect has a cause, as you say.

    Totally beside the point, it isn't even remotely necessary to talk about all Atheists, Agonostics, etc as if they are inferior to you. Also, you refered to all of 4chan as an Atheist site(or something to that effect) when you had no evidence of such a thing. Just something you should know, you aren't superior in some way to other people.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,408
    Blog Entries
    28
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sesshiro
    "In Christ, faith is not blind."

    If this is true, then there is a logical reason for god to be uncreated, which would mean there is no cause for god. This alone ruins your so-called pefect proof due to the fact that it operates under the fact that every effect has a cause, as you say.

    Totally beside the point, it isn't even remotely necessary to talk about all Atheists, Agonostics, etc as if they are inferior to you. Also, you refered to all of 4chan as an Atheist site(or something to that effect) when you had no evidence of such a thing. Just something you should know, you aren't superior in some way to other people.
    Every effect has a cause, and thus the cause for everything that is created has a cause except that which is uncaused.

    The inferiority of atheists and agnostics is in theire not being born-again. This is a fact. They choose to be indepedent from God so they are without God's life. They do this because they self-exalt themselves above God. 99.9% of those at 4chan are going to hell. That is an easy call to make given what they do there.

    God said that He is not respecter of persons (Acts 10.34), so I am the same as everyone else, made in the image of God. The only difference between your clan and myself is that they call Jesus a liar and God has not forgiven them for their sins, while God has forgiven me, because I believe in His only begotten Son, and so I have eternal life; you have eternal separation from God.

    This is your choice.

  6. #6
    Sesshiro Guest

    Default

    "Every effect has a cause, and thus the cause for everything that is created has a cause except that which is uncaused."

    Other than being slightly confusing(In wording) this does nothing to prove your point without also agreeing not every effect needs a cause, therefor a scientific theory of how exstance is what it is now is not less true than christian belief.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,408
    Blog Entries
    28
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sesshiro
    "Every effect has a cause, and thus the cause for everything that is created has a cause except that which is uncaused."

    Other than being slightly confusing this does nothing to prove your point without also agreeing not every effect needs a cause, therefor a scientific theory of how exstance is what it is now is not less true than christian belief.
    This is not confusing. All things in creation are caused; this is always the case. The uncreated is uncaused and the reason for why is given in the 4 Step Proof agreeing that every effect has a cause in creation. Science, if it is true, agrees with the words of Christ. When science disagrees with God's Word it is not true; that is, the application of the laws of science have been misused somehow. Your point is flawed because you are petty, still not looking at the 4 Step Proof.

  8. #8
    Sesshiro Guest

    Default

    Your entire proof and arguement is assuming science argees with christian belief, which is not the case. You may want to rethink that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,408
    Blog Entries
    28
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sesshiro
    Your entire proof and arguement is assuming science argees with christian belief, which is not the case. You may want to rethink that.
    Science that is true agrees with God's Word. If it were not the case you could show it, but you don't. This is then, your presupposing, without a reason, that science might not agree with the Proof, but the Proof proves science agrees with the Word.

  10. #10
    Sesshiro Guest

    Default

    There is solid evidence to Darwin's Theory(Yes, I know, theories are not proven)which clearly does not agree with "with word". Even so, your proof is no more proven than Darwin's theory, which actually relies on more than intuition and twisted logic, as your proof does.

    This is, of course, only one example.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 4 Step Proof for God & Minimal Facts Approach
    By Churchwork in forum Minimal Facts Approach
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 09:31 PM
  2. Regarding the 4 Step Proof for God
    By Marquis Naryshkin in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 11:08 PM
  3. Questions About the 4 Step Proof
    By Silverhammer in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 06:07 PM
  4. 4 Step Proof for God - True or False?
    By whatisup in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 06:41 PM
  5. My Issues With the 4 Step Proof for God
    By adrian in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 03:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •