4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[DRay563]

The 4 Step Proof states clearly that it "does not presume God first, since notice I did not mention God first." So, DRay, you may be overassuming that the Proof would "presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God."

If I misspoke, I apologize. I know the proof does not presume the existence of God. The proof is designed to prove the existence of God. As such, using God as an initial reason or as a premise is faulty logic. This is all I meant.

The same can be said regarding the conscience towards sin. It has been exponentially increasing so we don't dare do some things we commonly did before.

Evolutionists use a similar observation to say that we have evolved a "moral gene" if you will. Remember, however, that sin doesn't just find its roots in immorality in relation to other people. How much sin happens daily when people use the Lord's name in vain, when people worship idols, when people lie, just to discuss three of the commandments?

Your next mistake is thinking sinlessness is pertaining to the Cosmos, when I am only focused on man in the Proof attaining perfection by God's grace. As was stated, "Note: this proof is not referring to nature merely reacting, but to man made in God's image, and only those men who are being perfected because they are born-again or saved. We are referring to only man, not animals, and only those men and woman who are saved."

I am curious, then, how this applies to what I quoted from Step 1 of the proof in my first post? How is it that the proof focuses on man, when the proof clearly states, "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)..." (quote taken from the second sentence of the first paragraph of Step 1)? Clearly there is at least some focus on the cosmos. This quote continues to say "...irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity."

Eternity has not been here for man. Man, as you have stated, has been here for 6000 years. In this, I feel you are tying together two things and jointly connecting them to eternity, when only one has the potential establishment of eternity. Let me be more clear:

1) If for eternity things have been evolving, THEN
2) These things cannot include man as man has only been here for 6000 years.
3) The result of having an eternity of things evolving, provided by the proof, is sinlessness.
4) The possibility of evolving in relation to sin, as sin does not have any relation to the cosmos, can only come into play for mankind, THEREFORE
5) The evolution under discussion has only been here for 6000 years, THEREFORE
6) The discussion of the possibility of cause and effect for a past eternity does not apply AS
7) An eternity of things evolving does not pertain to the evolution of man which has only been around for 6000 years, THEREFORE
8) Any said conclusion that eternity cannot have been here due to the observance of sin only maintains that MAN has not been here for eternity, not the cosmos, THEREFORE
9) This proof does not establish that the cosmos cannot have been here for an eternity, but only man.

My 9 step proof here establishes, in a nut shell, that Step 1 wrongly assumes that since man has not been here for eternity (as such an eternity would result in sinlessness, a seemingly ad hoc proposition), the cosmos cannot have been here for an eternity and therefore require an uncaused cause, i.e. God.

Sin first entered with Satan, so God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. When man was created in God's image 6000 years ago, sin soon followed again. This impacted the whole earth as well. But this time, God did not wipe out the whole earth, only locked man out of the garden and flooded the earth locally. You can take this as an exponentially increase in conscience. It is showing God will not flood the whole earth again and wipe out all creatures, but only 1/3 of the people of earth (Rev. 9.18) in the Tribulation. The Cosmos is not God's focus. God's focus is man made in His image to be in the image of His Son so that God can walk with man in the millennial kingdom and be the center of the new city in the new earth after the millennium. Even one day, the universe will dissipate, but man will continue on.

I see a whole lot of stating, and not a whole lot of proving.

Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

In this, we see that God created. There is no indication of Satan or spirits, there is only that which God created and an earth that was formless and empty and water. How is it that from this you draw the conclusions about Satan and a pre-earth?

I am familiar with the passage in Ezekiel 28:11-19 which is probably where you get the idea of Satan being cast down to earth.... but we must also remember that this passage is a prophecy concerning the King of Tyre. While there is clearly metaphorical representation of the King of Tyre to Satan, we should not be terribly dogmatic about drawing conclusions such as a pre-earth that was destroyed by a flood. We know of two things from Genesis. God made, and the earth was covered in water. We have nothing, from this, to say that God made anything other than what is determined in verse 2.

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.

Genesis 6:13, "So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
Genesis 7:4, "[God speaking] Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
Genesis 7:20-24, "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living things that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living things on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

This doesn't sound local to me. We both established that we should only agree with science when it doesn't conflict with the Word of God. What reason, beyond science saying that there is no evidence for a global flood (which there actually is), is there to say the flood was local?

The loins of Adam that you presume Cain's wife came from is not to say a child of Adam, but included in all those in the Adamic race. This is not incest, but rather all human beings on planet earth, no matter what continent they were on were in the Adamic race. As soon as Adam was God-conscious all men and women were God-conscious. Just as when Christ died all men died and covered by His death, though not all receive His atonement. Be careful not to legalize the Scriptures. Cain came directly from the first Adamic man, but his wife may not have. We can't say because the Bible doesn't say, so it should not be an issue. You should take your own advice and not be so dogmatic. Your initial mistake premise is causing you some faulty reasoning.

You are implying, I think, that God created other humans, and that Cain's wife could have come from these other created humans? I would ask, what reason, other than maybe to lower a few eyebrows over incestual relations, would you have for trying to impress this into the Bible? God gave us a relatively comprehensive account of His creation, and mentioned making one man and one woman. While it's possible He could have created others, there is no reason to believe this unless you are trying to resolve some external issue (such as Cain's wife). As for God-conscious:

Genesis 3:6-7, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened..."

The Bible doesn't specify whether or not it was because they both ate of the tree that both of their eyes were open or if it was because Adam ate of the tree that both of their eyes were open. Therefore, to establish a doctrine such as "all men were God-conscious when Adam was" would be mere opinion. Also, in terms of understanding that having other created people is potentially contradictory to Scripture:

Genesis 3:20, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she woudl become the mother of all the living."

How is that possible, if God created other humans? If Eve were the ultimate mother, the bloodline for all humanity, then God could not have created other humans (unless they were other men, but I'm not sure how much sense that makes).

When God flooded the earth in Gen. 1.2, naturally there was some residual creatures that would make up the food chain. Such sin was not completely eradicated, nor could it have been. Notice day 2 in the restoration of creation was not called a good day because up came some of those demons that were cast into the deep in Gen. 1.2, one tempting Eve. They were disembodied spirits that entered creatures, even man after man's fall. Man was protected in the Garden of Eden until his fall. What do serpents eat? Then, when man sinned even man was not protected from meat-eating creatures because man was cast out of the garden. What Gen. 1.30 is telling us was God's original design creating perfect, and the 6 days of restoration are a summary of bringing about that which was already there. Unfortunately, some negative things persisted, though it should not have been a worry to us if we remained not in sin.

Again, more declaration without Scriptural evidence. What residual creatures? Where is this found in Scripture anywhere? The only possible reason I can think of would be to help reconcile the fossil record, once again, science super-imposing something into Scripture. If there is another reason, one founded in Scripture, please enlighten me!

Yes, there is no recognition in Genesis 1:2 of it being "good." But the light was called good on day one (Genesis 1:4) and when God separated the water and made the sky one day two, it wasn't good either, but there isn't a connection between this and some pre-earth that Satan and the demons inhabited.

The emphasis in terms of conscience is in percentages. I have already made this point in Step 1 which you overlooked. Simply, percentage-wise murders per capita are decreasing, crime per capita is decreasing. Take for example, form of punishment. Decapitation is not common now, nor is brutal forms of punishment. Incest is less prone. One spouse is the norm. Though things are getting more complicated, there is this overall civility in society that exceeds that of previous generations. The Wild West of gun stand-offs is not something we do today. It is not to say there is still not problems and horrible things that happen still, but on a per capita basis there is an improvement.

Where do you get your data? I would be interested to see the comprehensive study that details this? I mean, the Holocaust? 6 million people dead. The current holocaust situation in Africa? Millions dying. Women raped multiple times.

I just started reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller, and one of the things he discusses is that the system established in America is not one to help people become moral; rather, it is a system of checks and balances so that people will not be immoral. Everyone watches everyone so that everyone is good. But this doesn't change the inner nature of humans. We are all broken by our sin nature. If we were evolving towards sinlessness, then we would need the police less and less. The reason for any decline in committed atrocities should be more or less attributed to a better legal system and good law enforcers, not because we are becoming better in and of ourselves.

If, in a certain amount of time, we could become better on our own, then we would have no need for Christ. If time is all that is needed for righteousness to be a natural fruit of man, why did God send His only Begotten to die for us? It doesn't make sense, unless you contend that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was a necessary step in the evolving process. This, however, has nothing to do with man being able to evolve on His own. Instead, we have an indication that God has intervened to help us "evolve" to be better. This, however, requires an intervening act of God, the very God this proof is trying to prove. Since we cannot use God to prove God, we cannot say that Christ came to redeem mankind as part of the evolving process. Since the premise is the decline of immorality in mankind as a whole, then there is no need for a Christ-figure to be a sacrifice as time is the only miracle worker provided by the proof. Given enough time, we will become sinless. Therefore, it doesn't follow that Christ was needed, doesn't follow that God ever needed to die for us. This proof undermines the whole basis of Christianity.

In the past the great majority were unsaved, and so it remains today. The ratio of saved to unsaved is much lower than you think then and now. The issues you raise are not a matter of worsening condition, since the things we can do now were not available in the past because the technology was not there. You would be comparing apples to oranges. Today we can still guillotine people to death, but we choose not to. Today, incest is still an option, but per capita is less the case. The fact that things are more complicated and we sin in these new scenarios is not a proper claim on things getting worse. It is merely a reflection of more complicated things. If things were this complicated 3000 years ago, man would sin much worse.

Does the method really matter, so long as the sin is the same? If you contend that using a guillotine to kill people is a sin, it is not the tool (the guillotine) but the act itself (capital punishment). I myself do not have a formulated opinion about capital punishment, as I haven't sat down and really thought about it a whole lot. Maybe I should.... Anyway, the point is, technology just improves methods of sinning or not sinning; it does nothing to change the nature of the sin. Sin is the heart, embodied by the action, enhanced by the tools. If a person murders with a gun as opposed to a stone carved spear, what's the difference? It's still murder. If a man looks at pornography and lusts (technology has made this sin much more available.... and just so you know, pornography being one of the top industries in the world doesn't lend itself to less immorality) or watches a woman walk by and lusts, what's the difference?

The difference, you might say, is that if we had given a man 3000 years ago the button to launch an atom bomb, he'd do so without hesitation. Maybe. Maybe not. It's pure speculation to say so. If one were to explain the consequences of firing the atom bomb, well known consequences today, he might not do it.

In fact, I think that's the key. The accumulation of the knowledge of consequences to sin has had an overall impact on the observable quantity of sin. I include the word "observable" because, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When men would steal in broad daylight, it was not because stealing was more practiced, it was because the chances of getting caught were much less. As the consequences are more severe (that is, if we took France's road and chopped off a man's hand after he stole), we'd see a much sharper decline in thievery. This merely has to do with a knowledge of consequence, not with the actual lack of intent.

I pose you a question. If there were no government, no laws, no officers, only anarchy was the master of men in America.... what do you think the country would be like? Orderly or chaotic?

In all forms of science, cause and effect still apply. There is nothing in quantum physics that precedes with an effect without a cause. To think so is just a mistaken assumption, since it can not be shown to be the case. Where is the humility in that? All probabilities have their causes. Just because in a deck of cards there are different outcomes, does not mean there is not the same 52 cards that cause those outcomes. Similarly, there is the same molecular components, but they still must abide in the same laws of cause and effect, just as the 52 cards must abide in the shuffle.

I think you are missing the point. While I understand your point, given the deck of cards, it doesn't follow as a good analogy for the quantum level. Let me give you an example, seen from watching Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" videos. A man walks into a quantum bar and orders a blue drink. The bartender says "I'll try." She comes back with a red one. Now, another copy of the same man walks up, and another, and another, until 9 copies of the same person all reach for the same glass simultaneously. They each pull out a different color drink (with a few duplications, like two of them had orange drinks), even though the glass on the table had a red drink in it. This is a good example of the nature of quantum physics.

In the deck of cards, there are forces that establish which cards will be where. These forces are gravity, shuffling, the stickiness of the cards, among many other factors, and the probability of where cards will be are firmly based in this understanding. As such, if we were to verify every force and every detail that went into dealing the cards, we could say with 100% certainty which cards would be where. In quantum physics, 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. This also goes hand in hand with another aspect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that we cannot know both the location and speed of subatomic particles. It is this uncertainty that rules quantum physics, and as such, does not play into cause and effect.

Granted, quantum physics does not state (to my current knowledge) that an effect comes prior to a cause. Rather, it 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.

I am being particularly dogmatic about this point because cause and effect is a phenomena that is established within the scientific community. The name "cause and effect" has certain scientific understandings that you are, knowingly or unknowingly, appealing to in your proof. This appelation is caused merely by using the name "cause and effect," as it has certain connotation that the reader will associate with it. I am merely stating that these specific connotations do not hold up within the scientific community. Since the proof is undergirded with this scientific term, it must bow to the scientific understanding of the term, both where it is upheld and where it is shot down.

You'll just have to accept there is some things God does not want you to know. That would seem reasonable, if you were created by God. The Proof places the burden of the proof on you. It is a perfect Proof because it has stated a position that nothing in nature happens all by itself and that nothing is without a cause, which is backed. This is seen in trillions of examples in creation, yet not one example can be given for the idea that something can happen all by itself. Do you see therefore how the odds are against you in claiming that the quantum level can possibly happen all by itself? It is illogical to surmise that since so many examples can be given of all things having a cause and effect, that then something can happen all by itself without any evidence from you.

Actually, seeing as science shows things without causes (of which I have delineated), there are in fact more examples (just merely unobservable ones to the naked eye) of things that are uncaused than there are caused. This is easily understood as things that are observable are made up of trillions of tiny particles unseen, atoms. These tiny particles are then made up even smaller particles, quantum particles, and these quantum particles outnumber the atomic particles. 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. 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.

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.

I am not being pretentious, nor am I being doubletongued. If you feel I am, I apologize, for this is not my intention nor my goal. As I established from the beginning, I am merely seeking truth, not personal glory. 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.

What I am saying is that a beginning to the Universe is in accordance with the kalam argument, such that "everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the Universe had a beginning; therefore, the Universe had a cause." 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.

In your reasoning about finite points, calculus solves your problem. You said "It is logically inconsistent to define a point infinity away because there is no way to establish such a point except perhaps in your mind." It is not necessary to give the exact date of a proposed eternity of the past by atheists and agnostics as they try to disprove God, for it is enough to know that it is not possible because we still sin. A point of eternity in calculus is taken as a spot to work from which approximates infinity. I think you should take a calculus class. If there was an eternity of the past (~) in causes and effects then you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but since you still sin proves that you were created by God, given Christ.

I have taken 3 years of calculus, and 3 years of applying this calculus (although, two years of calculus and two years of application overlap, so really, only four years). I feel that I understand quite well the concept of infinity. Let's take an example:

f(x) = 1/(x-1)

The graph of this function would go to positive and negative infinity as you approach the point x = 1. At the point x = 1, however, would be an undefined y-coordinate. Why? Because infinity cannot be defined as a point. Try dividing 1 by 0 in your calculator. It gives you an error, because this is an undefined point. This is where the difference between calculus and reality comes into play. Calculus recognizes infinity as "finished sets," such that it sums up the infinite into the finite. Zeno's paradox is a classic example. If you travel half the distance every time, you can never reach a destination. The importance that calculus allows us to realize is that the summation of the infinitely smaller numbers results in a finite number, the actual distance you travel.

An important aspect of calculus, however, that many people lose, is the difference between a calculus infinity and a real infinity, a calculus zero and a real zero. A calculus zero is as close as you can possibly come to zero without it actually being zero. A real zero is just that: zero. If you divide a number by a calculus zero, you get infinity. If you divide a number by a real zero, you get undefined. There is a very real and important difference in this!

A point of eternity taken as infinity from which we can measure things does not apply to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is a real infinity, not a calculus infinity. It doesn't follow to assume that if we use the calculus infinity method to solve the real infinity, we should get the same result.

Take for example, when solving a limit where you have the condition of zero divided by zero, you use L'Hopital's Rule to solve it until you get an answer. However, if ever have a math problem with zero divided by zero, something is seriously wrong. It is an impossibility, a mathematical flaw, not a calculus wonder! The difference is that the "zero over zero" condition for calculus is in fact a limit as something approaches zero, not an actual "zero over zero" situation.

All of this to say, we cannot use calculus methods to solve for a real infinity, as calculus is based on limits and not actualities. The infinite regress is not the limit as it approaches infinity, but actually infinity. The two should not ever be confused.

Just because there has always been God is not reason to believe in an infinite past of creation. That is not even logical, for God would have created at some point. Intuitively it makes no sense that there would be an eternity of the past of causes and effects just because God exists. God can exist in the eternity of the past without His creation having yet been created.

I'm sorry if I was unclear on what I was saying. Let me restate what I meant, as it seems I was unclear.

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. 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). 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.

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)... (quote taken from the second sentence of the first paragraph of Step 1)

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. Sin has a very religious connotation, and in fact, its definition is rooted in disobedience to God. You cannot have sin if there is no God, because you cannot disobey that which isn't. Therefore, in defining perfection, and therefore defining the ability to be perfect, you have established the concept of God. 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.

In Christ,
Daniel