4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

[DRay563]

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

[Churchwork]

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."

Interpolated predictive science is most valid on its trajectory in all walks of life. To simplify this is so, take for example, the increasing size of the sun. We know eventually one day, in about 5 billion years from now, the earth will be burnt up and be without the sea because of the increasing size of the sun. This a certainty. Scientists also agree the universe has been expanding at an exponential rate with no end in sight. The dark energy has shown to be greater in strength than dark matter and matter. 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.

Step 1 is not saying eternity leads to sinlessness, but that if you had an eternity, you would have ample time to attain sinlessness. And as Step 1 shows, by interpolating the exponential progression of man's conscience, it is evidentially and experimentally reality. This revelation agrees intuitively.

There is not a requirement for the knowledge of whether the universe is a closed or open system. The 4 Step Perfect Proof is perfect, and thus, does not rely on things unknown, only that which is known to know it is perfect as evidentially predicted.

Chaos to man is merely randomness, but to the laws of cause and effect, it still has its causes and effects. This does not change the principle of Step 1, which indicates there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effect, otherwise you would have attained sinlessness. Whether a system is closed or opened, space is curved or not, makes no difference in our observing our exponential progression of conscience and thus, eradication of sins.

The only required proof is observing the progression of man's conscience in the past 6000 years. If it is exponential, then it is true that eternity is more than enough time to reach sinlessness as we approach infinity. Ergo, there was not an eternity of the past of causes and effects, and man was created. Only Christ fulfills that characteristic when compared to all other gods.

Your problem, I sense by the Holy Spirit, in reading the Proof is not reading the whole Proof. Let it all sink in before overlooking something vital to the Proof. Perhaps you stopped at the first couple of sentences of each Step, for I am merely repeating what the Proof already shows evidentially.

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." 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.

We see in God's design from the moment of God placing man in creation to the time of man's perfection it does not need an eternity. Thus, you can take the starting point of man being placed in creation as approximating the eternity of the past to show that it does not require an eternity to be perfected.

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.

There is the added point too that if you claim incestuous relations to deny exponential progression of the conscience, then you are arguing against yourself, because today, such practice is rare. This is another example of an exponential progression. You said there is no mutated genes to pass along in incestuous relationships in Adam's time if his own children procreate with each other, but that is not true. If such a thing occurs, it automatically is a defect because any procreation, whether incestuous or not, is being born into sin from the fall of Adam and Eve.

The meat-eating animals and insects stem from creation's fall instigated by Lucifer when he was cast out of 3rd heaven. 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.

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.

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.

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. Whatever you want to call the energy source! Whether there is a perfect vacuum or not is irrelevant for even the vacuum or non-vacuum has its cause. Whatever we are confused by is no justification for deciding that it is not under some law of operation of cause and effect. How silly. After realizing Step 1 of the Proof, then see that nothing happens all by itself, which is Step 2 in the Proof. Just because you can't discern, does not mean there is not a reason; otherwise, you are pointing to yourself as the center of the universe, that what you know becomes the guiding principle. But this is not reality, for obviously there is things going on you are unaware in their cause and effect.

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.

By your admitting there is not an infinity of the past of cause and effect, then unwittingly, you have accepted Step 1, so precede to Step 2. 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.

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.

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.

Even if there was multiple universe, the law of cause and effect still applies, no matter how confused you are by entropy, open and closed systems, vacuums, collisions, bubbles, black holes, various models, and event horizons.

God alone has made it clear and revealed to us the Proof of His existence. It is the same thing He said in the Bible, look at the mountains and the stars, and ask yourself, did you do that? No. God did it! The 4 Step Proof merely digs a little deeper into that truth in 4 steps:

1) If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but you still sin, so therefore, you had to have been created and there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

2) Nothing in nature happens all by itself. It always has a cause. Thus, God did it. God is uncreated creator.

3) Don't argue against some god, for we are speak of God uncreated. Disproving some god is not the subject of this Proof. None have been able to disprove this Proof of God in the 4 Steps.

4) In the supernatural realm: there can not be an eternity of the past of gods creating gods and supernatural causing supernatural because then you would have had an eternity of the past of cause and effect to attain sinlessness, yet you still sin. Thus, God created according to His divine providence. This brings you back to Step 1, which is God's perfect Proof revealed by the Holy Spirit. And remember, this Proof first does not assume if God exists, but through the evidence it becomes the Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

In all of this we have seen God has proven Himself to be the cause of creation and reveals it to us intuitively in agreement with the workings of creation evidentially, predictably and intuitively.

[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

[Churchwork]

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

[Stinge]

G'day,

Before I attempt (or see whether I can be bothered to attempt), a refutation of your "proof" I would like to ask you a clarifying question. Part of the scientific method when positing models or theories is that they must be able to be falsified. There are many examples that can be given for Evolution that if found would falsify the theory. If hominids were to be found in the same strata of the geologic column as ancient single celled organisms, if intermediate or transitional species were never observed (incidentally of which hundreds of examples could be given where they have been witnessed). What in your opinion would falsify your "proof"? What predictions does your "proof" make and can it be tested experimentally? I ask this as it seems that you categorically reject all disproofs, and then ban those who disagree with you. If I know what it would take to falsify your theory I can invest my efforts accordingly. If you believe you're "proof" cannot be proven wrong, ever, then it is not a valid theory and not worthy of consideration.

Please advise,

Regards,

Stinge.

[Churchwork]

Nobody is banned for disagreeing. Not at all. There is not even a single person banned, though some accounts have been removed for belligerency and obstinacy, or other things in violation of the Board Etiquette enough times to warrant it. Read Board Etiquette #9.

On evolution, Christians don't deny it. Rather we say it is a limited perspective since it doesn't explain the big picture because it does not deal with what occurred before the first single celled organism.

There is actually nothing you could do to disprove Step 2 of the Proof for God, because it is impossible to prove something happened all by itself and overcome trillions of examples of things with causes. But with Step 1, if you could show more child sacrifices is an improvement then you would disprove the Proof for God. This is actually a silly discussion, because these things are so obvious. Ergo, God said we all know God exists, for we all have a spirit of God-consciousness. We are without excuse.

[Stinge]

G'day,

Considering you made the FSTDT top 100 quotes for banning someone I would assume you are lying (just like Jesus...damn I couldn't help myself, please don't ban me)

"[One Christian speaking to another]

You are banned. You are not a Christian for Christians don't accuse brothers and sisters in Christ of being non-Christian. "
Troy, Bibliocality [Comments (1041)] 2006-Feb-07

You are Troy aren't you Churchwork? Anyway, this is a trivial point and not what I'm here to discuss.

On evolution, Christians don't deny it. Rather we say it is a limited perspective since it doesn't explain the big picture because it does not deal with what occurred before the first single celled organism.

I'm intrigued, where in the Bible can I learn more about God's wonderful use of Evolution to create man? Surely it must be an excellent read finding out all the details of how we came to be over billions of years. There must have been a printing error in my bible as I can't find the details anywhere? Or did God omit the details because he holds the patent on the process and doesn't want to divulge his trade secrets? Crafty bugger that God making us believe he just created us instantly instead of over billions of years.

You say you believe in evolution, but it doesn't explain the big picture as we as yet do not understand how abiogenesis occurred. It still explains an ENORMOUS amount more than "God did it". And what happens if man in the coming years does figure out how life began from natural processes and is able to recreate it? What place then for the God of the Bible and its dubious creation story?

As Richard Dawkins shows in the God Delusion, Evolution is a consciousness raiser, it opens our eyes to the idea that if such complex beings as ourselves can be the product of natural processes and sufficient time, why can't the Universe have evolved from simpler to more complex structures without the need of a god. Admittedly, this doesn't explain the "big picture" of why there is something rather than nothing, but just because we don't currently know how abiogenesis occurred or exactly how the universe came into existence, we shouldn't make stuff up like "God did it" to fill the gaps in our understanding like they did in the stupid ages, instead we should say we currently DON'T KNOW and continue to search for answers.

There is actually nothing you could do to disprove Step 2 of the Proof for God, because it is impossible to prove something happened all by itself and overcome trillions of examples of things with causes.

Step 2 (Kalaam or First Cause argument) appears to be fundamental to your "proof" yet you state there is nothing we could do to disprove it. If a portion of your proof cannot be falsified, that part of theory is not valid. Does your "proof" still hold without step 2? The answer is NO (well to be fair your proof was one of the worst I've seen and regardless of step 2 is chock full of errors and inconsistencies that have been pointed out by others, that your "proof" only succeeded in showing how entrenched you are in your god mindset...where's the intellectual honesty you tout so often?).

Yes, there are trillions of examples of things with causes, but you are looking at the macroscopic world which operates very differently from various things in the quantum world which appear to be indeterministic. If everything has a cause, as you claim, what causes virtual particles to pop into and out of existence? Don't know? How then can you claim ALL effects have a previous cause when we currently don't know how many things in the quantum world are caused?

Incidentally do you believe in free will? If so, that opens a big can of problems with cause and effect. You're step 2 would imply Hard determinism which is incompatible with free will. I had no choice but to reject the notion of god due to a long standing chain of cause and effect :)

But with Step 1, if you could show more child sacrifices is an improvement then you would disprove the Proof for God.

So all I have to do is show that more child sacrifices could be an improvement to take out the $10000. I like it, here we go:

As an interesting aside, it's funny you should use child sacrifices as your example considering these children who have been subjected to this have been sacrificed to appease various gods over the millennia. Ah the evils of religion, but I digress.

I intend show how a dramatic increase in the number of child sacrifices could result in an improvement in the human gene pool and the health of future generations.

If every child (or adults too) who were found to have any genetic or hereditary disease or disorder were sacrificed / killed before they had the opportunity to reproduce, the benefits to the human gene pool and health of future generations would be dramatic. Medical science is currently able to keep millions of people alive who would otherwise die, allowing them the opportunity to reproduce and as is the case with hereditary diseases, pass on their afflictions to the next generation. For those with currently non-curable infectious diseases, if they were to be sacrificed, the chance of them passing on the disease to others diminishes significantly. This could also be extended to a Hitleresque / Gattaca type situation where by culling the weakest genetic links (eg extremely low IQ, ugly), a vast improvement in the gene pool and health of future generation would be achieved. The more people who are sacrificed who carry inferior genetic material, the greater the improvement for future generations. Also the more we sacrifice the less strain the human race will put on the planet, with less people to feed, house and clothe. We could go one step further and try resolve diseases or conditions that occur later in life after individuals have already reproduced by sacrificing the offspring of any individual who has these afflictions (if they are hereditary like heart disease, diabetes, etc). So do your part for the Human race, sacrifice a child today! I realise I sound like Hitler at the moment but the point of the matter is, if this was to be done, the benefits and improvement to the human gene pool would be immense.

Incidentally, this is already happening on the small scale with IVF and pre-checking of embryos for hereditary diseases. Those found with problems are discarded and only "healthy" embryos implanted. Do you count abortion as child sacrifice? If so your figures for step 1 just got mighty skewed as the numbers of women having abortions has greatly increased in recent history.

The above shows how increasing child sacrifices could be a huge improvement for the human race. You ready to hand over the $10000 now? I can set you up a nice payment plan if you're a little short of cash.

Regarding your Step 1, what evidence do you have that humans can ever or are likely to attain a state of perfection from sin (or as close as is humanly possible) without referencing the Bible? What makes you think that the improvement seen in the amount of "sinning" has anything to do with god and isn't to do with the changing moral zeitgeist and actions of humans trying to better their lot. You see less murders per capita and think "god's plan is unfolding nicely, not long until we'll be sinless beings", I look at the same figures and think of the myriad of reasons crime has been reduced with a purely human cause as society develops and changes and our culture evolves with the times.

This is actually a silly discussion, because these things are so obvious. Ergo, God said we all know God exists, for we all have a spirit of God-consciousness. We are without excuse.

And you end with some Christian dribble...nice. I must have been out having a smoke when god handed out the spirit of God-consciousness or God must have been mistaken (oops not omniscient) when he said we all know God exists, 'cause I for one do not know God exists and have been shown no proof whatsoever from my touring of this site. I'll save you the trouble, I'm going to Hell, praise be to Satan (bugger that's right I don't believe in those things either).

Interested to see your response.

Cheers,

Stinge.

[Churchwork]

The body was formed from dust. Consider the billions of years to form the body.

Since the uncreated is proven, you know God did it in your spirit of God-consciousness.

Free will is compatible with determinism. God gave you free-will. He caused it. You were created with the choice which God can foresee.

All things in quantum mechanics have a cause. They can't just happen out of nowhere all by themselves. That's silly. Nothing in nature exhibits puff the magic dragon out of nowhere.

Your conscience is seared in your claim that murdering people is an improvement. What a sick and demented world that would be if it was considered a good thing.

You know God exists, for you know the uncreated must exist because nothing in nature can pop into existence all by itself and the exponential progression of conscience shows us we would not still be sinning by now.

Therefore, if you don't want the forgiveness of God by accepting what His Son did on the cross, then what have you but an eternal separation from God when you are resurrected to hell.

[Stinge]

G'day,

What a load of Christian drivel. Again you have aptly displayed how you are completely entrenched in your God mindset that you have created some God filter in your brain to reject all facts and logic that contradict your claims.

The body was formed from dust. Consider the billions of years to form the body.

Doesn't the bible say God created everything in 6 days, then got sleepy and napped on the 7th day? Where in the bible can i read about the billions of years to form the body or are you just cherry picking the bits of science you like and ignoring the rest and re-interpreting the 7 days of creation to be non-literal?

You also didn't provide me with the parts of the bible that detail evolution? It appears "God did it" works until we prove he didn't do certain things in the way the bible says and then Christians have to go and re-interpret the bible. And now that we have proof we came about by evolution, Christians claim that must have been how "God did it", what a crock of shit. Just keep on moving those goal posts.

Since the uncreated is proven, you know God did it in your spirit of God-consciousness.

The uncreated is only proven in your mind. Even if I conceded that there must be a first cause, something that is uncreated, what on Earth makes you think that it is a God that fills this position, let alone the God you choose to follow. What proof do you have? How has every other religion got it so wrong, yet you somehow chose the right God to worship? Had you been born in the Middle East you would be praising Allah and Mohammed. Did you just get lucky with where you were born, so you could learn the truth and be able to be saved? Do you not see the idiocy of claiming so many of us are unsaved because we don't believe the same tripe that you do? If some extrordinarily complex being like your God with all his Omni powers can be the uncaused cause, why can't you concede that the uncaused cause could have been pure energy for instance and all things followed from there. Seems to me that if there is an uncaused cause, the chances that it's the most complex and supreme being possible is absolutely laughable. You concede evolution is true, and we can see how complexity evolved from simpler forms. Yet you still believe the most complex being possible is what came first.

You need to stop stating that things are proven when you are making arguments based on faith and not facts. What a quality scientific argument you posit with "you know God did it in your spirit of God-consciousness." I personally am either without a spirit of God-consciousness or don't know how to access it. So since I am unable to just know these truths that those of you who have this magical ability are obviously able to just take on faith, I need you to provide me with some actual evidence.

Free will is compatible with determinism. God gave you free-will. He caused it. You were created with the choice which God can foresee.

Life must hold very little mystery for you since anything you don't know or understand you put in the "God did it" pile. How do you know such things? Did you just feel it in your God-consciousness or did you read it in the Bible and accept it as truth? At what point in our evolution did God intervene to hand out free will? How are we "free" to make choices when every choice we make is the product of a long chain of cause and effect as per your step 2? Our thoughts are a product of our brains. We can't just make a choice without any prior cause and effect or our choices could be said to uncaused which would fuck up your whole argument? Did God just give us the illusion of free will?

All things in quantum mechanics have a cause. They can't just happen out of nowhere all by themselves. That's silly. Nothing in nature exhibits puff the magic dragon out of nowhere.

Does this include your God? Or is he the exemption to the rule? Sounds like Ad Hoc reasoning to me. You will prejudicially apply the exception only to your God which is a logical fallacy.

Your conscience is seared in your claim that murdering people is an improvement. What a sick and demented world that would be if it was considered a good thing.

Oh my conscience doth burn, the pain! Good in this sense is subjective. If were talking about the actual murdering, sure, not such a good thing. The results the murdering would bring on the other hand would be very good for the health and well being of future generations and the planet. You're the one who set me the challenge of showing increasing child sacrifices could be a good thing and I think I showed how it could be very beneficial despite being very distasteful. Personally I'll wait for Scientists to find cures and genetically engineer people to be healther and disease free to achieve the same results, once you fundie's let them do stem cell research of course.

As per my previous post, included below, I was curious whether your step 1 figures have taken into account the number of abortions or "murders" as you Christians like to call them?

"Incidentally, this is already happening on the small scale with IVF and pre-checking of embryos for hereditary diseases. Those found with problems are discarded and only "healthy" embryos implanted. Do you count abortion as child sacrifice? If so your figures for step 1 just got mighty skewed as the numbers of women having abortions has greatly increased in recent history."

This kind of screening is only going to become more prollific as even couples who could reproduce normally are opting for IVF to screen the embryos and discard those with defects. Is destroying an embryo killing a human?

Your conscience is seared in your claim that murdering people is an improvement. What a sick and demented world that would be if it was considered a good thing.

Welcome to the Dark Ages of the history of your Religion where sick and demented was considered a good thing. Yeah, I've never seen any religious groups go about killing people thinking it would be an improvement. Oh hang on, what about the crusades, the inquisition. Now that I think about it, religion pretty much has held a monopoly on killing people with different beliefs for millennia in an effort to improve matters by killing the heathens and heretics. The Bible has more instances of murder, killing and mass genocide than any book I could possibly think of, and most of the killing is instigated by God. "Pot Calling Kettle Award" nomination on behalf of your religion.

...the exponential progression of conscience shows us we would not still be sinning by now.

Again from my previous post, please answer the following:

"Regarding your Step 1, what evidence do you have that humans can ever or are likely to attain a state of perfection from sin (or as close as is humanly possible) without referencing the Bible? What makes you think that the improvement seen in the amount of "sinning" has anything to do with god and isn't to do with the changing moral zeitgeist and actions of humans trying to better their lot. You see less murders per capita and think "God's plan is unfolding nicely, not long until we'll be sinless beings", I look at the same figures and think of the myriad of reasons crime has been reduced with a purely human cause as society develops and changes and our culture evolves with the times."

Therefore, if you don't want the forgiveness of God by accepting what His Son did on the cross, then what have you but an eternal separation from God when you are resurrected to hell.

I do not want nor need forgiveness from any mythical beings. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins? If God is Omnipotent, surely he could have just forgiven our sins without torturing his son? What a shit parent, welfare should take his son away from him. Glad he's not my dad. If it turned out God of the Bible exists I would want nothing to do with him. At least if I did go to hell I'd be surrounded by tonnes of my friends. By the way, telling people they are going to hell only scares religious people who are too chicken shit to think for themselves.

Have a nice day,

Cheers,

Stinge

[Churchwork]

Since Jesus is proven to have walked the earth, he would not be mythical. Since 95+% of scholars believe in the historical Jesus, then your issue is with scholars. If you can't agree with what the majority of scholars are agreed upon, then you are on your own illogical path.

The 6 days of creation are summary days of restoration; that is, they sum up the long period of restoration after God made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. This is called Gap Restoration.

Muslims know better not to believe in Islam, obviously, because 600+ years later they say Jesus never died on the cross without any evidence to support their alteration. There is no excuse for such mindless self-declarations. It doesn't matter where you live. Holding such mistaken assumptions and creating a religion around that false idea is untenable.