DRay,

Step 1

It doesn't help your case to disprove the Proof by saying what the Proof already agrees to such as your admitting the Proof doesn't claim God first before proving God's existence.

We see an exponential improvement in conscience in man by citing many examples of things we just don't do anymore. This is how God designed us: to move forward not backward. That's why we don't do many horrible things we use to do. Evolutionists see it as a moral gene, so therefore, they should agree that they were created by God, otherwise they would be contradicting themselves. Evolutionism is not wrong, since the body is formed from dust. Evolution is just limited in its scope since it deals with the physical since the Amoeba. It doesn't explain that which precedes the biological.

Just because man is in the cosmos does not mean it is about the cosmos, for it is centered on man. The cosmos is merely the conduit. God's point of focus is man made in His image, not the cosmos. The point of the cosmos is that it containing man, if it had been eternally existing in the past would mean also man had an eternity to be perfected within the cosmos when we approximate to eternity of the past. But since man still sins, therefore, you know you were created and there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effect. Very simple truth.

Your continual problem is not understanding calculus. Just because man was made in God's image 6000 years ago, does not discount the process by which God went through to bring man to that point. Therefore, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect it is irrelevant when man started in the evolving chain, for wherever man starts, it is accounted as being in the eternity of the past if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. But since man still sins, we know that is not the case and man was created. Step 1 remains true.

Evolution, the dust in Gen. 2.7, did not begin 6000 years ago, for man's body was being formed biologically since the Amoeba.

Creation, Desolation and Restoration

Gen. 1.2 reads "And the earth became waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The word "became" is also used in 2.7 and 19.26, so it should be used in verse 2 also. In your creation, your god creates waste and desolate. In God's perfect creating, He creates perfectly in verse 1. Events then follow such as Lucifer's fall from 3rd heaven, fallen angels and the demons, causing God to make desolate in verse 2. He deals with this problem accordingly, but no such dealing is availed to your belief system to account for the tempter in the serpent.

The details of Ez. 28.11-19 are laid out. The first part (verses 1-10) address the Prince of Tyre. The second part (verses 11-19)-which is a lamentation against the King of Tyre-points to the future Antichrist. Historicalists are against this teaching, because they are historicalists; so shall they be deceived by the coming Antichrist. I can give you much aspect and understanding of this when you are ready to hear. Suffice it to say, Satan is still the god of this world and he holds back the Antichrist until he has no choice but to release him.

No doubt the Great Accuser will accuse of being dogmatic when it is pointed out there were the events of the fallen archangel Lucifer between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2, long before 6000 years ago.

You're contradicting your own position in these words of yours: "Also, where do you get the idea of a local flood? This is completely unfounded in Scripture; rather, it is an super-imposed idea of the modern world as science says there is no evidence for a global flood." You said "there is no evidence for a global flood" and "where do you get the idea of a local flood." Why contend for no global flood when I have said there is a local flood? That is nonsensical.

Noah did not know the world was round. His world was the world locally. So the verses pertaining to his experience of the flood are indeed local. Learn to put yourself in the shoes of the person in the day they were living. That's the selfless thing to do. Legalisms are for dullards. Scientific evidence has shown that part of the land gave way around the sea, flooding the whole area. The exact spot where scientists suspect the land giving way is known and also evidence of artifacts in the sea bed are also found. Those artifacts are particular to that time period.

This is a nonsensical statement: "You are implying, I think, that God created other humans". There are not other human beings. There is only one kind of human being: human being.

As we have discussed this I have found you to be wrong on everything we talk about. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me so much error in you, that I will know you by your fruit. Based on our private talks and in the open forum, the Holy Spirit has revealed you are not a Christian. And, you will not change your view.

All Men and Women are in Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve are the first God-conscious beings. As soon as they became the first all were in Adam, that is to say, all the dust formed to create the bodies, caused all mankind that flows from Adam. No matter what continent you are on, you have no excuse. All were in Adam: human beings. This happened about 6000 years ago. The number of souls exceeds that of the specific family line of Adam and Eve. Adam is spoken of in particular because from Adam to Christ is 76 generations in this lineage. We know 6000 years ago there were men on all continents. Therefore, your theory is disproven. For example, study the Egyptians to know there were cities back to of 10,000 BC, except that they did not have God-consciousness; thus, they would cease to exist. It was only until 4000 BC that man was created in His image as the Bible says so which science can agree to.

Adam and Eve were not God-conscious when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You misread me in claiming I said that. When Adam and Eve were created in God's image they had God-consciousness. Do you see the difference?

Eve is the mother of all creation since she is the first God-conscious woman and all men and women are in her as all mankind is of the Adamic race. Your problem is you only see the physical legalistically, so you think all must physically be born of Eve by bloodline. But it is true that there were humans (not other humans since there is only one kind of human made in God's image) on other continents so that when we say all were in Eve, we do not mean they were born physically from Eve's womb, but spiritually speaking, all human beings flow from the Eve.

Day 2 Was Not A Good Day

What residual creatures? When you flood a planet or even take away its atmosphere (Gen. 1.2) it is possible for some residual creatures to remain living. It is from these creatures that the long period of restoration is summed up in the 6 literal summary days. When the firmaments were split to restore creation, day 2 was not a good day like the other days because up came some of those demons. You asked for proof, this is it. The 6 days are not "created" but the Hebrew word is "restored". The purpose of the Bible is not to give you a detailed scientific record. If you want to read between the lines, you will have to abide in these facts which agree with these verses and words the Bible employs.

Day 2 follows Day 1. Day 1 follows the making desolate in Gen. 1.2, since the days are days of restoration. You are utterly confused, for you wrote, "there is no recognition in Genesis 1:2 of it being good." I did not say Gen. 1.2 is good, for I was talking about Day 2 not being a good day, because up came some of those demons God cast into the deep in Gen. 1.2. If you would like to study about Earth's earliest ages, read these two links. For example, many including C. I. Scofield believe that Jeremiah 4.23-26 refers to the condition of waste and void cited in Gen. 1.2. Read those two links to understand the details of this.

Do accept your bad logic in knowing Lucifer was cast out of 3rd heaven, then not accounting for the time period from then to when one of his demons entered the serpent around 6000 years ago to tempt Eve. This creates a big hole in your theology.

Raw Numbers are Not the Key

You only see the raw horrific numbers, but on a per capita basis the numbers are better today than before. Whole nations would be wiped off the face of the earth in previous generations. Many children would not make it to the age of 5 percentage-wise, and no less for the reason of child-sacrifices. Though in Islam they still perform this ritual, teaching their children to blow themselves up. Israel was suppose to wipe out such evil nations in Canaan that did this, but Israel failed, and so such child sacrifices remain today.

The number of police per capita is less today. A much greater percentage thousands of years ago were devoted to men in arms. It is quite narrow-minded to overlook this fact. You are only focused on the now, and not making comparisons.

Though common grace is showing us improvements, this is not to mean that Christ is not needed for redemption. The good self can never save a soul, and still needs the blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins. This is why many souls are still going to go to hell. Though they appear to have received some common grace improvements, even so, they still need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This is most evident in the fact that the Great Tribulation is still ahead of us (still hostility), there will still be a faction of those who will take the mark of the beast. The good nations will be transferred into the millennial kingdom, yet they must believe still individually. That's why I say that when I speak of sinlessness exponential improvements unto perfection, I am talking only about the saved specifically. Whereas, the unsaved will be forced into hell because they did not want to repent of their sins. They may have have had some refinement by God's common grace, but they remain unregenerate, eternally separated from God. God intervenes, even in common grace.

This is entirely illogical: "Since we cannot use God to prove God, we cannot say that Christ came to redeem mankind as part of the evolving process." It is not that we can't use God to prove God, but that for the purposes of this 4 Step Proof, God has afforded us a proof that does not need Christ first to be mentioned to hold its own in proving God. We certainly can say that Christ came to redeem mankind. God gives us this stand alone proof. Thus, no man has any excuses.

Ultimately, in this section, you are confusing regeneration and common grace. No matter how refined an unsaved person is, he will never be saved. He still needs Christ on the cross.

Whether it is the weapon that changes that causes the sin or not, the fact remains on a per capita basis the death penalty is less. There would be a 1000 women in the temple giving sexual worship. Percentage wise this is far worse than all the pornography on the internet and brothels in the world today. Again, all this shows, is an exponential improvement. There were entire cities that were homosexual in the OT, but today it is much less the case.

Would man push the button to create a nuclear explosion 3000 years ago if he had the technology. You bet he would. If for no other reason his conscience is not up to speed with knowledge. Thus his conscience is not nearly as strong as it is today, even if only a conscience that is affected by common grace and not actual regeneration of the spirit. Everyone knows the consequences of an Atomic bomb today, so don't make excuses for people by saying "If one were to explain the consequences of firing the atom bomb, well known consequences today, he might not do it." Indeed, man has not done it yet today which is a testament to the exponential improvement of conscience generally. If a man could throw his own child into the mouth of a fiery Moloch god, surely, blowing up a city is on his list of things to do.

I must admit I find your ideas very dull, and boring to talk to, since you are always wrong in your conscience and self. Whether I am casting pearls before the swine or what is holy unto dogs, it makes no difference. You are not ready for this conversation.

The policing of a state, or lack the need of, is a reflecting on the improving conscience of a society. In all of what has been said we continue to see how Step 1 remains true: If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, then you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. Ergo, you were created by God, given Christ. The exponential progression of conscience, in believers unto regeneration, and non-believers unto hell remains an axiom we can prove continually. The difference being, non-believers never accept God's atoning sacrifice.

Physics Agrees with Determinism

In your drink analogy, it fails in that you confuse the scenario by that amount of your own lack of understanding of the laws of cause and effect in play. Just as the force behind the deck of cards pervades, so are laws also behind the working of quantum physics which you can't perceive. Just because you can't perceive them does not mean they don't exist, for we see the consequences of them. Humility dictates that it is so. The outcome is not "firmly based in this understanding" as you say. Your understanding is irrelevant. Whether you understand or not, does not change the fact the laws of cause and effect are still prevalent and in play. Just because men did not know there were other continents, thus not included in the flood, does not mean they didn't exist. When man discovered the continents and understood of their existence, does not mean they all of a sudden came into being.

Your logic is undesirable in trying to distinguish quantum mechanics from deck of cards. You said "in knowing (at least, within the realm of current scientific thought) every force and every detail that go into determining quantum behavior, we are still only left with probability." It is the same with a deck of cards, whether we know all the elements involved or not. The reason men use quantum mechanics as an example, in their hostility towards God, is because it is so utterly complicated, that they can input their own crazy ideas, but your ideas fail you. You said, "It is this uncertainty that rules quantum physics, and as such, does not play into cause and effect." This is entirely illogical. Just because there is uncertainty is no grounds to saw there is no law behind it of cause and effect. Just as in a deck of cards, we don't know the next card that will come out of the deck, yet the law still exists in the probabilities of it. If an ace is missing, there is just that amount less chance of an ace appearing. Quantum mechanics is just way more complicated, but holds to the same principle of one thing causing another.

The reason I know you are not a Christian is because you are contending for the idea that something is without a cause and happens all by itself. This is against the Word of God.

Your version of quantum physics states, "that there are things that happen without cause (an important element of cause and effect and this proof), such as the nature of determining which of the possible choices a particle will choose given a certain set of conditions." Quantum physics does not state this. Though some may say this is what quantum physics states, it is not proven, and there is no reason for such an assertion, since nothing in nature exhibits this character. All the odds are against you since more than a trillion things have seen to have a cause, yet nothing is seen to be without a cause. Just because you can't understand the complexity does not mean you can arbitrarily demand causelessness. That's dumb, without humility and ultimately hostile to God.

Cause and effect hold up within the scientific community (in all of nature seen), and I am not referring to pseudo-science that you are contending for where you claim like an atheist and agnostic things happen all by themselves just because they are too proud to accept there is something they don't know as being the cause. I agree with you when you say you are dogmatic, except that you are dogmatically wrong in contending for something so dogmatically that you can't show, or even come close to doing so.

Herein is your pride and what keeps you eternally separated from God: "Actually, seeing as science shows things without causes (of which I have delineated)". Science never showed that things in creation happen all by themselves. Nor did you delineate it. I praise God that self-declarations from selfish souls is nothing but independency from God. Your open theism (claiming God is without infinite foreknowledge) and calvinist tendencies (claiming God is without foreknowledge of our free-choice) and puff the magic dragon teachings (pridefully claiming things happen all by themselves without evidence) is why you are going to hell. These are the tools you employ to separate yourself from God. And they are a symptom of your unregenerated spirit. They are the false fruit by which you are known.

When I speak of causes in nature it includes unseen and seen causes, unseen being interpolated and seen being visible by the eye, which they both observe laws. In all instances everything has a cause. The only thing that does not have a cause would be the causeless cause, God. He is proven by the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself. Ergo, God did it. And the exponential progression of conscience means there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, since it would not need to take an eternity to reach sinlessness perfection in the saved.

This does not follow, "Since the quantum particles abide by quantum rules, and therefore cause and effect doesn't apply, and the atomic particles follow Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, where cause and effect does apply, we can reasonably and safely say that there are more cases of a lack of cause and effect than cause and effect." The problem with this statement is the false statement that quantum mechanics do not have causes and effects. That type of pseudo-science gets you nowhere. Nothing in quantum physics causes you to think something happens all by itself. You just lack the understanding to see that small in nature. It holds that since Newtonian and Einsteinian physics abide in laws of cause and effect, then it would be true of Quantum physics. If all we have ever seen in human history agrees, then there is no reason to think otherwise.

Understand why you believe in puff the magic dragon. It is because in your spirit is the evil spirit who teaches you this and you accept it to be so deceived. You have yet to receive the Holy Spirit to oust the evil spirit in your spirit.

Your idea is wrong: "Since the burden of proof was placed on me based on the overwhelming cause and effect evidence, it is now placed on you to prove the legitimacy of cause and effect as there is overwhelming evidence against it." Since there is no evidence yet against causeless effects, the burden of proof still falls on you.

From the beginning you have established your desire for personal glory as evident by the constant error, paragraph after paragraph. These are not complicated things in their basic understanding, yet you say "As I established from the beginning, I am merely seeking truth, not personal glory." You are seeking personal glory, for such glory stems in so much error. You can not be so consistently wrong on every point if you were not seeking personal glory. Furthermore, we have seen in the unsaved, self-proclamations such as "Any self-contradiction is due to my imperfect nature, and I will gladly and willingly recognize such self-contradictions and flaws within my reasoning when pointed out at me." Yet after it was shown you your error, still you remained in that error, repeating it, saying it yet needs to be shown to you. What you claim is vastly different from actuality.

Notice how you contradict yourself because you said, "There is no particular reason to argue for or against a beginning or no beginning." This contradicts what you said: "The beginning point cannot be defined as back unto infinity because such a point is non-existent." You have agreed with Step 1 because you admit there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effect since you said it is "non-existent". But then you said there is no particular reason to argue for "no beginning". This is doublespeak. You do the very thing you advise against. 1 Tim. 3.8 says be "not doubletongued". Wise men do this to be couth, but it is pretentious.

And so you repeat your error: "However, as Step 1 doesn't seem to follow (as I attempted to prove earlier in this post), then Step 2 necessarily becomes a natural extrapolation of personal opinion. If Step 1 holds, then Step 2 becomes a natural following, to this I will agree. But, since I don't believe Step 1 holds sufficiently, Step 2 doesn't hold either."

Since Step 1 does hold, and you failed to show otherwise, then Step 2 naturally follows. Step 1 remains so powerfully solid, ultimately given by God: If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect (and we know all things abide in law of cause and effect, nothing to the contrary), then you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin if you were saved. But, even, it applies generally in common grace to all people, as we have gone over numerous examples of improvements of conscience on a per capita basis. To date, you could find no problem with this observation and sound reasoning.

The reason you still have issue even though you have no valid reason must be because you are unsaved. This is your false fruit which I know you by. The unsaved man makes a declaration without substance because self is his center apart from God. Hell is your future. Even now you have that foretaste in what the Bible describes as the tares who try to look like the wheat by their own strength, not relying on God's Spirit and Word.

Calculus - Approximating Infinity - Agrees with Step 1

What I find always intriguing is it doesn't matter the level of a man's knowledge, he is still unsaved. You can even be the leading scientist in an area, and still be unsaved.

For example, you said of yourself, "I have taken 3 years of calculus, and 3 years of applying this calculus." Yet, you still contend against a point in the past which we can equate as approximating infinity for the purposes of Step 1 to show that it is not possible, because we still sin. Do you see how the mind, full of knowledge, can still be unrenewed?

The application of approximating infinity in calculus for Step 1 is simply to say that it is unnecessary to know specific details of when and how, but merely accept that an infinity, if it had being going on for infinity, renders certain conclusions given what we know and see today in relation to sin. Since we see an exponential progression of conscience today compared through the past 6000 years, we know that according to exponential progressions the point of approximating infinity of the past demands that we would be without sin by now. Calculus says that an approximating of infinity is equal to infinity in practice.

In your commentary on calculus you are letting things distract you from the point of what is pertinent to the Proof. You should go back to the roots of basic calculus (which I keep repeating), because you are confusing yourself and come across as someone who does not even know basic calculus, and thus will try to bog himself in inapplicable details to the relevant aspects of calculus for this Proof in its simplicity. Do you see how your mind is unrenewed, because your spirit is not regenerated?

The reason I am deleting your account is because you add nothing, and continue to rationalize false teachings (fully detailed here), and will continue to do so, even unto hell. Since this site is for the Work for the Church, and not to discuss things that are obviously wrong, and you have not presented any new contentions to the 4 Step Proof, which you are warned against, this is warrant to expel you. Do you not realize what you are arguing for has already been discussed and you present no new information in your contentions?

This is without distinction: "If you believe God has always existed, then you believe in an infinite regress. Those who believe in an infinite Universe also believe in an infinite regress." Just because God existed for eternity does not mean creation existed for eternity in the past. The infinite regress is different. The former is God's eternal life, the latter is God's creation. The latter are proven false because Step 1 proves them wrong.

Desperation of an Unsaved Man

Thus it does not follow what you believe when you say: "Therefore, it is illogical to argue against an infinite regress (I included this only because many argue against the infinite regress, William Lane Craig being one of those [see his argument about Hilbert's Hotel], and I thought you might do so also)."

Disproving an infinite regress of creation proves God created, since there is no other option. William Lane Craig is a born-again believer. He believes there is not an eternity of the past of creation, so this proves God did it. Craig is a Christian and you are not a Christian. Do you see how that works? Praise the Lord for this discernment!

In your profile you note several things: 1) you reject God foreknows our free-choice so you believe in an impotent god; 2) you reject that between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2 there is the happenings of Lucifer, fallen angels and the demons, rejecting God's Word; and 3) say you are not sure about a great many things in the questions at registration to this forum. I just wanted to record this here since your account is being deleted. Your being not sure is not against you, but definitely indications of your lack of spirituality.

Since you state, "I believe that God created and that the Universe is not in a state of infinite regress. However, it does not follow that the Universe could not have been in an infinite regress as a brute fact anymore than God existing as a brute fact, which is usually what these types of arguments narrow down to," you are agreeing with Step 1 (not an infinite regress as proven), but then turn around in the next sentence and say just the opposite (could have been in an infinite regress). I am left with just the thought, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Certainly God's existence is not a brute fact, but certainly an obvious fact, just as there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect, which is an obvious fact, otherwise you would be without sin.

Sensitively the Holy Spirit is showing me that you are desperately trying to find flaw in the 4 Step Proof, and in so doing, making horrible mistakes because of your obsession with the task-this is your brute effort. The task has been presented not to convince you that it can be disproven, but to show you that you can't disprove the 4 Step Proof; and certainly, error prone ideas you put forth, expose you through and through. How soon you forget Rom. 1.20 which the 4 Step Proof corroborates.

Don't be a Dullard

You have nothing but error in your words DRay: "Another argument against this proof that came to mind is the very wording of the proof itself. In stating that to be perfect is to be without sin, there is a recognition of sin and therefore a recognition of God."

The proof already discloses that recognition of sin is not recognition of God but observed in nature without mention of God, even though of course, sin is something God is ardently against. As the Proof says: "And, since we know we jail people for crimes, we know there is this sin that has consequence, and the mention of it does not presume God first, since notice I did not mention God first. This throws a wrench in lots of atheists'/agnostics' ideology." Why overlook this fact? It shows you did not really read the Proof.

Though it is true sin is mentioned in religion, religion itself is particular to everyone, since religion is worship of something, anything. Whatever a person places first in their lives is what they worship. It is their religion, even that which is above God.

This is a false statement: "You cannot have sin if there is no God, because you cannot disobey that which isn't." You can sin against man, man is. So we put people in jail.

This statement is false: "Therefore, in defining perfection, and therefore defining the ability to be perfect, you have established the concept of God." Since the matter of sin can be discussed at least on some level without mention of God, as we have seen, then it does not demand the presentation of God first, even though certainly God is applying the redemptive design to the exponential removal of sin in the saved. Initial mistake premises lead to false conclusions.

Last error noted: "Since the proof is designed to prove God, you cannot use God as a premise to prove God. As such, the proof does not hold up." Since the 4 Step Proof for God does not use God as a premise to prove God, then the Proof remains solid.

Not everyone who says they are saved is saved. At least 99% of open theists are unsaved. We shall know them by their fruit.

Praise the Lord for this discernment!
In Christ,
Churchwork