Let me first establish that I am a Christian who believes in earnestly seeking truth. I feel it is my job, as well as the job of everyone else, to find that which is true within the bounds that God has established for us. That being said, it is important to analyze that which is real and to some degree rely upon scientific observation (that is, where it does not obviously contradict the Word of God), especially where science is virtually infallible (empirical and observational science, not predictive science). That being said, all of what I will say from this point forward is what I consider to be true based on logic, rational thought, and current scientific evidence, all of this presented from an Atheistic standpoint (as this argument cannot presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God). Let it also be known that my attempts to refute (or help refine) the argument of "4 Step Proof of God" is not for personal glory, but rather to help continue uplifting God and what is truth, for God is truth (John 14:6).

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.

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

I find several problems with this statement. First is that this statement goes against scientific evidence. The idea of an endless amount of time leading towards perfection is both counter-intuitive and counter-evidential. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all closed systems undergo an accumulation of entropy, such that even if there is a located decrease in entropy, the total amount of entropy in the system will increase. The nature of the Universe as a closed system has not been proven or refuted, as the understanding of the curvature of spacetime has three possibilities. Two possibilities, negative curvature and no curvature, lend themselves to an infinite and unbounded Universe that is an open system. One possibility, positive curvature, lends itself to a closed system, in which the Laws of Thermodynamics can and would apply. Therefore, if one were to postulate that the curvature of spacetime is positive and therefore a closed system, an eternity would lend itself to chaos (as this is what entropy is a measure of, the amount of useless energy or chaos in a system) rather than perfection. If one were to postulate that the curvature of spacetime was either negative or none at all, then this would lend to an open system and the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would suggest perfection would be a result of an infinite system; rather, only the possibility of anything as there would be infinite mass and infinite energy.

The second problem I see is the direct connection between sin and the evolution of the cosmos. You have quite clearly defined the evolving nature of the cosmos as being both biological and non-biological, and that given enough time, this biological and non-biological evolution would result in perfection. Now, assuming that such a conclusion is true (even though I just spent a little bit of time establishing why I think it is not true), there is an inherent flaw in this line of reasoning. Sin did not enter the cosmos until approximately 6000 years ago. In fact, it says in Genesis that everything that God made "in the beginning" was good! Therefore, prior to any sin being in the world, everything was already perfect. Once sin entered into the world, there has been an overall degeneration of Creation.

To provide an example of this, let us look at gene mutation and incestual relations. A common question asked is "where did Cain's wife come from?" Well, Cain's wife came from the same lineage he came from: the loins of Adam. Now, it's possible that his wife came from one of Adam's sons or grandsons, we aren't sure of this, so we shouldn't be terribly dogmatic. Fact of the matter is, one of Adam's sons had to marry one of Adam's daughters to continue to produce offspring (or Adam had to procreate with one of his daughters). This raises quite a few eyebrows, given not only the Levitical laws but also the obvious.... disfigurement that usually accompanies incestual procreation. The reason for this is obvious though. Let us say that a mother and a father have a son and daughter. The father has certain mutated genes (most of which are easily overcome by good genes) and he passes these mutated genes to his son and daughter. Now, the son and daughter decide to procreate.... and in doing so, they both pass along these mutated genes to their single child. Because of this close-relatedness and the gene mutation build-up within a family line, disfigurement is usually the result of procreation within a family line.

However, this would not have been a problem during Adam's time, as there wouldn't have been mutated genes to pass along. Therefore, there wouldn't have been any problems with incestual relations resulting in disfigurement due to the accumulation of mutated genes. And this is where Cain's wife (or at least one of the sons' wives) came from: his sister. And this is a great example of the overall degeneration, not perfection, of the human race as time has worn on. This degeneration is the natural result of sin being in the world! Sin corrupts everything. Even the animals, originally plant-eaters (Genesis 1:30), many of them have become carniverous or at least omniverous, rather than getting closer to the alignment of their original state.

As a clause to this problem that I see, let me say that there has been a recent emergence of order within the seen chaos. A professor at Yale did a study and proved that given an open system where there is an infinite source (the sun) and an infinite sink (the earth), there will be a local decrease of entropy. Hence the development of technology, the overall moral nature of mankind, the establishing of global laws.... etc. However, the evidence on earth does not establish the evidence universally. It a logical fallacy to give to the whole that which can be seen of a part (you wouldn't call a whole car blue just because the seatbelt was blue). Also, this recent emergence of order does not counteract or deny the degeneration of sinfulness as it has accumulated over the generations. This degeneration is becoming more and more painfully obvious, not only within the animal kingdom and within gene mutation, but also with the spiritual deadening of society as a whole (America is a great example) and the lack of emphasis on God as the key to life (and more of an emphasis on man's ability and scientific reasoning to explain life and reality as a whole).

The third problem I see with this is that cause and effect has been debunked within the scientific community. Cause and effect are wonderful for Newtonian physics, even to some degree Einsteinian physics. However, once you leave these realms and begin moving into quantum physics, cause and effect don't apply. Cause and effect are principles based on the predictability of things. Given a certain condition, a certain object will do a certain thing, 100% of the time. In quantum physics, however, all objects live by the rule of probability. There is a certain chance that they will do a certain thing, given a certain condition.... but they could also do something else! Even more so, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for the creation and destruction of particles, seemingly at random, within a false vacuum state of energy. Where we see nothing (space), there is in fact ambient energy and within this energy, particles are somewhat circumventing (but not breaking) the law of conservation of energy. They create themselves (a pair of a particle and an anti-particle) from this energy and then recombine into the same energy they were made from. There is no cause, no rhyme or reason discernable, other than the reason that there cannot be emptiness (the impossibility of a perfect vacuum).

Now, I will say this. There is a cause for everything, and that cause is God. But, since the conclusion of this proof is that God exists, we cannot use the conclusion to prove the premise. Since, from an Atheistic and purely scientific standpoint, there is no deducable cause for the things we observe and measure in the quantum level, cause and effect is a law that doesn't apply in that world. That being said, it is unsound to use the law of cause and effect to prove the evolving nature of the cosmos (as the cosmos is made up of, and therefore bound to, the nature of the quantum level).

Second, if the universe and time are without a cause and continued to exist in the eternity of the past in causes and effects, then this simply reverts us back up to Step 1 which shows why there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects.

(quote taken from the first sentence of the third paragraph of Step 2)
I have spent time arguing with an Atheist on the CARM boards about the nature of this type of argument. And I walked away with a very important conclusion that I hope you will accept rather than reject.

There is no particular reason to argue for or against a "beginning" or "no beginning," as both can be reasonable and neither can be disproven, using merely logic and science. If one wishes to argue for an unbounded past, such that there is an infinite regression, this is possible as it would not take an infinite amount of finite steps to traverse such a regression. Let me explain.

Traversal requires a beginning point and ending point. The end point is obviously where we are now, the present. The beginning point cannot be defined as "back unto infinity" because such a point is non-existent. 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. That being said, any established point to traversal must necessarily be a finite distance away from the end point, being the present. Since such these two points, by definition, can only be separated by a finite distance, there is an infinite amount of regression time prior to these two points, and there was not an infinite amount of traversal required to get from one point to the other. Therefore, since you can only establish one point, there is not an infinite amount of finite steps required to traverse this gap.

In fact, it is somewhat counter-intuitive to argue against this type of logic, as we believe that God always has been. Since there was never a time without God, it is more reasonable to assume an infinite regress than to not. Since we already have an infinite regress established, it becomes merely opinion to establish that God is the brute fact that must be rather than the Universe.

You might, however, revert back to your argument of perfection, or even try and to establish my argument for eventual total chaos (I noted someone referred to the "Heat Death") and say that the Universe cannot be in existence for an infinite regress. However, current physics models allow for such a belief (even though, in reading them, I find them highly consistent with science fiction, they are none-the-less some of the current models for the existence of the Universe). Take for instance, one can believe in the infinite sea of indeterminite energy from which a quantum fluctuation is derived. Or, if you prefer, you can believe in the nucleation of true vacuum bubbles within a sea of false vacuum, and the collision of two such bubbles allows for unfathomable particle generation. Both of these models are derived from an infinite regress of an open system (in which Entropy will not be accumulated) and say that the visible universe is nothing more than one of many universes (derived from the concept that our Universe is in fact a black hole and the farthest distance we can see is our event horizon).

These models allow for belief in something aside from God to establish not only the imperfection we see, but also the universe we see. There are still some problems with the theories, but neither is physics a comprehensive study of all that is. As was argued to me, and I have come to agree, it was merely my presuppositions that made me posit that God is the brute fact rather than some of the other explanations offered. I still posit God and my "opponents" still posit physics, but it is an important recognition to make that there are other reasons rather than merely science and logic that help us determine what we believe.... and that is our own conditioning.

In Christ,
Daniel