Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 150

Thread: 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default Summary of this Whole Response

    Summary

    For a quick summary this is my finding. No new idea was introduced by the atheist Juliet that I have not heard before. It comes down to this. We have substantial evidence for the resurrection of Christ using just the minimal facts approach from James the brother of Jesus to Paul, written and oral tradition, the earliest creeds in 1 Cor. 15 and Acts, Peter and John's testimony. All these first hand eyewitnesses wrote about the resurrection in a total of 11 different group settings, witnessing the resurrection of Jesus Christ themselves. There are the other accounts as well in the NT. The apostles all went to their death we are fairly certain given the documentation in the first and second century. Nothing in antiquity is more well documented that the death, deity and resurrection of Jesus. Place this in the backdrop of a very timely religio-historical context, it provides wonderful meaning and purpose among 40 writers from the New and Old Testaments over 1500 years, 62 prophecies in Christ fulfilled, miracles performed that are really unmatched in their work and depth. In my experience, I still have not found any mistakes in the Bible and hundreds it seem have been attempted in being thrown at me. Really no religion compares to the resurrection and deity of Christ to atone for sins. In fact, no religion has even made quite such a claim for their god to enter into creation to provide salvation. And skeptics can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus. Other religions can be found at fault very easily, but nobody can find anything wrong with bare bones Christianity.

    Compare the above substantial evidence to the idea of the atheist Juliet who says the universe has always been existing in the eternity of the past and she or he argues for the possibility of something in nature causing itself. Most scientists give no support or consideration to such an idea for in our experience in human history nothing we have ever seen in nature is without a cause. All effects precede a cause. So, if all things have a cause, then what is the ultimate cause if it cannot be something in nature? The only known answer to this question is the uncreated is the creator of this intelligent design. Who is the uncreated? That answer is revealed in the paragraph above.

    Now what is said here is perfectly reasonable, so we can easily surmise the cause of some people not accepting the reasonability of this information is because they are bad people. They are trying far and wide to find some cunning rationalization for why the universe has always been existing in the past to rationalize their rejecting God of the Bible which of all the adherents in the world none can compare. And in my own experience before I was saved I was just too interested in the world to give salvation any consideration. I can imagine both groups of people. Those who are too busy in the world, but also those who go the ends of the earth to rationalize their hostility to God of the Bible. Both groups are equally unsaved, but the group that goes to the ends of the earth to rationalize God away is more likely in trouble because they have be one on one against God for some time, formulating their rationalizations against him. It does not take that long to be born again after first considering Christ.

    One major, and perhaps the biggest, problem in thinking by the atheist is in their misreading the Proof. How can you even begin to deal with the Proof of God of the Bible if you misread it at the start and don't know its exact intricacies? If you conceive it to be something other than what it is, you are arguing against something else, and not the 4 Step Proof, which ties in well with Step 3, not to try to disprove some god, for this is the God of the Bible we are dealing with. If they could only just read the 4 Step Proof as is and let go of their preconceived notions of the Proof, this would go a long way to deliverance. For example, people have their ideas about some cosmological argument, but as you read the 4 Step Proof in its simplicity, you realize it is not like cosmological arguments. The 4 Step Proof is unto itself the Perfect Proof for God and is the same Proof God gives in the Bible. While the Bible proves itself with this Proof, the Proof also by itself proves the Bible.

    Conclusion: for someone to not accept Christ into their life is sure death and I don't mean only physical death, but also spiritual death to live out one's conscious existence in hell for all eternity in their separation from God's own people. Some hope they can just cease to exist, but this would mean there are no consequences even though you are made in God's image. Spiritual life is never so complicated as people think, but also never so simple. Ergo, how you respond to Christ today will determine how you live out in eternity.

    And that is that!

  2. #42
    Juliet Guest

    Default

    Churchwork,

    Usually, I like to respond to posts in full, but your 14 lengthy replies are too much (I have a day job and a life outside of the internet). It would take me literally days to compile a thorough reply to everything, so in the interest of time saving, I'm going to reduce down your comments to something more manageable.

    On the whole, your 4-step proof is a cosmological argument, and although it really has 4 steps, it can be condensed into two blocks:
    1) The cosmological argument, described in steps 1 and 2, to prove that a god exists.
    2) The superlative information, described elsewhere on your site, to show that the god is the Christian god.

    (Steps 3 and 4 are really just pre-rebuttals to critics, not entirely necessary for your proof.)

    Thats all it really is, and from the abstract point of view, that style of argumentation isnt much different from the arguments that apologists have been using for centuries. But from the technical point of view, your arguments in the cosmological block are just bizarre, and from the superlative block they arent academic.

    There is at least one comment I want to address upfront:
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    Be intellectually honest with yourself that the real reason you like being in sin and reject God is because you don't want to enter His new creation and receive eternal forgiveness.
    I was Southern Baptist for 20 years, more or less devout. I used my time at college as a spiritual journey, in the hopes that learning more and more about religion would make me a better Christian, so I learned about my religion, learned philosophy, learned mathematics.
    Shortly afterward, I figured out that "Faith" stopped being a rational justification for belief, because every religious person has faith in their own religions, but not all religious beliefs are equally plausible. Without faith, my only two rational avenues of belief were science and philosophy. Looking toward science, I couldnt find any room for god, for miracles, or the supernatural; looking toward philosophy, I couldnt even define the properties of god (well I could, but I couldnt justify them), and stripping away all of the properties of god that I couldnt justify, I was left with nothing. Atheism was just the end of the road of my spiritual journey.

    But you're wrong, I dont like living "in sin". If you'd ever seen my posts on other forums, you'd know that I'm extremely principled and morally motivated:
    - I became a vegan in '99 out of principle, in the interest of protecting animals' rights, even when theres no legal consequence for murdering them for the most trivial gains. [removed advertising to your own forums].
    - [removed advertising to your own forums] even when theres no legal consequence for ignoring others' misery and suffering.
    - To the best of my ability, [removed advertising to your own forums] even when its so much more convenient and cheap for me to save a dollar at the expense of others.

    I dont think I come off as a person who loves to live in sin, I go far far out of my way and inconvience myself to an extreme, just so I can minimize the harm I cause to feeling beings, because its the right thing to do. God has nothing to do with it.

    So to start, I'll address your cosmological argument:

    Step 1: The universe has a beginning.

    My initial problem with your argument was that you havent connected the existence of humans to the age of the universe, because theres no contradiction in saying that human existence is finite but the universe is infinite. Your reply was bizarre, with two major problems:
    How are humans intrinsically connected to the age of the universe?
    How is moral progress intrinsically connected to the age of the universe?

    I'll explain what I mean in detail below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    The universe is intrinsically connected to humans since our body was created from the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) of the stars. Scientists all agree to this finding. It took time for the dust to create man's body in God's divine providence, so this took place in the universe's time and part of its age at least.
    While that might sound good to you, its not logically sound. Its a variant of an undistributed middle fallacy that logicians call a composition fallacy, meaning that you deduce facts about a whole object based on its constituent parts. "X is made of Y. Y has property P. Therefore X has property P."

    If you arent sure why your argument is wrong, here are some logically equivalent arguments:

    - You are made of atoms
    - Atoms are unconscious
    - Therefore you are unconscious

    ^^^ the argument above is demonstrably false, because you are indeed a conscious being. You have a different set of properties than your component parts.

    Another simple example:
    - You are made of cells
    - Cells reproduce by folding their membranes into a cleavage until they divide into two identical cells.
    - Therefore you reproduce by folding your membranes into a cleaveage until you divide into an identical copy of yourself.

    ^^^ another mindboggling argument that is demonstrably false, because your sexual reproduction is nothing like asexual cell reproduction, which shows that you do not necessarily possess the properties of your component parts.

    Of course, theres something else to take into consideration, and its dives into a little more abstract* realm of philosophy related to being and essence, specifically talking about emergent properties. An emergent property is a property of an object that does not exist in any of its constituent parts, for example all of the pixels on your computer screen are just points of light, but when they are put together in a particular pattern they form a picture; the property "picture" is an emergent property of the pixels. Similarly, something that is musical (any song on the radio) is composed of notes, but the property "musical" isnt a property of any single note...

    ...with that in mind, you really have to wonder if humans composed of star dust are really "intrinsically connected to the universe". I dont think you could look at star dust and call it a human; the elements that stars create are just elements, and those elements have to be arranged in a certain pattern before it can be called a human. The property "human" emerges from that pattern, and the property "human" never existed in the universe before that time.

    So by now, you should understand why that rebuttal is no good, you havent shown that sinfulness of humans is connected to the beginning of the universe, its only connected to the beginning of the human species.

    * Emergence is "abstract" because its defined mostly in semantics, and that makes distinctions between emergent properties and their constituent parts very blurry sometimes. See the Sorites paradox for a little more detailed explanation.

    The second problem has to do with how exactly you deduced that moral progress really actually inherits from form to form. You said this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    It is not possible for the universe to stretch back into infinity because of the very fact, as was shown, if you had an eternity of the past in the universe, then our existence now would have had an eternity to exist in all its previous forms, so that today there would be no sin.
    The question begging is glaring, gaping, and almost taunting ;) Theres no explanation for why a being inherits all of the moral virtues from its previous incarnations (<--- oh my, that sounds a lot like hindu reincarnation!), as opposed to each incarnation being created completely new without inheriting any of its predecessors moral characteristics.

    If I understand your argument correct, it should imply the following: given that humans are made from parts of the universe, then their moral characteristics are intrinsically connected to the universe. That means, when a human dies, decomposes, and their nutrients nourish other plants and animals, those plants and animals inherit all of the moral progress from the human, and animals would clearly exhibit the properties of a moral human...

    ... but, that is nonsense. The moral characteristics a human has are not etched into the fabric of the universe, at least not in an eternal sense; the moral characteristics of humans exist in the structures of their brains, and when their brains are destroyed, so are those moral characteristics, so those characteristics have no possible way of transferring to another being simply by recreating that being from a humans remains. This probably explains why a person cannot "become keen like the crow" just by eating crow, or other stereotypical native america beliefs.

    In this case, your whole proof rests on a very bizarre explanation of how we progress morally, it apparently states that the moral characteristics of people are preserved across forms just by recreating new forms from old ones, which we already know is false.

    Of course, there are three more related problems in Step 1:
    How do you calculate moral progress?
    How do you prove all progress is upward?
    How do you prove all progress is really progressive rather than regressive

    Another issue that you've never addressed is exactly how you deduced that human beings would progress to a sinless state given an infinite amount of time. You used the concept of a limit, however your comments that "humans would have been created approximates eternity itself (as calculus teaches)" tell me that you really dont have a good understanding of even high school level pre-calculus. Why? Because not all limits tend to infinity.

    The main problem with you argument that "we would have had an eternity to be perfected" is that you dont state how you calculated anything. Whats the equation for measuring moral progress?

    As far as I'm concerned, you're stating that whatever calculation you're using tends toward infinity, but you havent shown you're work. For all I know, the calculation could be a convergent series, or it may not exist.

    A very simple example, if we imagine the moral progress as the sum of all previous moral progression, and we can state that each year we progress morally by a factor of (1/3)^n (where n is the year), then we have something like this:
    Code:
    Final term in series:
     
      limit         (1/3)^n = 0
    n = infinity
     
     
    Moral progression:
     
     infinity
        __                   1
        \      (1/3)^n =  -------   =  1.5
        /_                1-(1/3)
       n = 0
    The example above should be self-explanatory if you actually have more than high school introduction to calculus, in that even having an eternity to perfect a being at an exponential rate doesnt imply being sinless. So, I'd just like to see whatever math you performed to arrive at your conclusion. Until then, you havent shown that morality actually drifts unward toward infinity rather than converging on some real number.

    Another problem I've noticed is the fact that you havent shown that all moral progress is upward. Its not obvious that all progress is an upward direction, I'd heavily argue that most progress is random walk. Our progress could be completely aimless for eternity, always oscillating between varying degrees of righteousness and abomination. We might then imagine that moral progress is a different kind of exponential growth:
    Code:
                infinity
                   __
    f(x) =         \    ( (a^n) * cos( (b^n) * (pi * x) ) )
                   /_
                 n = 0
    (The function above looks something like this, which to me looks like a stock chart.)

    The function above is defined at every point and continous, where -infinity < f(x) < infinity for each point on f(x), but it doesnt have a limit (it doesnt even have a first derivative ;) ). You havent really provided a reason why moral progress drifts in an upward direction toward infinity, and I dont think you've explained why it drifts upward at all, rather than drifting aimlessly (<--- note: the function above does not drift "aimless", but I'm using the term loosely.)

    You havent provided an explanation for why we are being perfected, rather than just modified in trivial and apparently random ways.

    While you say that there are definite strides in moral progress, I dont think you've actually questioned that they really are progressive. For example, in 1850, women and non-whites had a diminished percieved value, and certainly there are a number of people from 1850 who would argue that women in the workplace and equality between the races is actually indicative of moral decline where you would call it progress. Similarly, we can take the acceptance of homosexuality in the mainstream as both moral progress or moral decline, depending on who we ask (if you ask me, its progress, but if you ask James Dobson then its decline).

    I am not arguing for subjectivism, however its just not clear to me how you define progress. Theres no real indication that our society is more progressive than any previous generation.

    Of course, theres something else you've overlooked: when you say that we'll become morally perfected over the course of eternity, how is that even possible? In principle, it sounds ok, but in practice is limited by quirks in psychology:
    Human minds cannot store an infinite amount of data.
    The limit of moral progress to infinity is measurably less than infinity.

    Human beings are very diverse, not a homogenous whole. Some people are just very ignorant or just very uncaring, and their moral choices will reflect their ignorant and uncaring minds. Theres no obvious argument that, given an infinite amount of time, because quite simply, people are born as blank slates, and it is impossible to accumulate the total sum of all the moral values stretching back to eternity. There is and will always be room for ignorance, and we can never purge that out of society, it may not even be possible to achieve moral perfection by your definition in the first place, even if we make the presumption that moral progress tends upwards. We may be constrained by a ceiling, where over time we get closer and closer to perfection, where we are 99% perfect, then 99.99% perfect, then 99.999999% perfect and so on.

    At the very least, you might be thinking that you show that 99.999(repeating)% = 100% using a simple geometric series, but that would make the presumption that ignorance can be partitioned into infinitely tiny parts, but that would also make the dubious presumption that minds can hold an infinite amount of data. But more importantly, some forms of ignorance, such as the mind of a newborn child who has no moral knowledge at all, cannot be partitioned at all; their ignorance is discrete, and the most morally perfect society can only achieve (100 - ignorance of one child)% perfection.

    The aforementioned reasons provide a good explanation of why your principle that people will tend toward perfection given an infinite amount of time are, at best, an idealistic fantasy, but not obtainable in the real world due to some practical limitations of mind and psychology. It would only be achievable in a hypothetical world where all beings are born with an infinite amount of data already in their heads, which I hope you would agree is impossible.

    At the very least, your method of proving that the universe has a beginning, based on the methods you outlined, need serious reconsideration. I was generous enough in my last post to provide an explanation of how the universe is finite, based on the fact that heat death is inevitable, but you replied that its not known whether the universe is a closed system. I admit that we really cant know with a great amount of certainty, because there are other models of the universe, such as multiverse and string theories, that do not imply a heat death, but at the moment we dont have a lot of evidence for those theories, we dont know if they are true or not. The best model of the universe, General Relativity, is observed directly, so at the very least its justified to be more partial to GR than the other theories, and justified to be more partial to the implications of GR such as the eventual heat death. However, if you reject GR and other sciences as a method for proving its finititude, and substituting your own "limit of moral progress to eternity" method, then you cant prove that the universe is finite for the reasons I've already explained above.

    So, I have to reiterate: your Step 1, that attempts to show that universe has a beginning, is not wrong per se, but just your way of showing that the universe has a beginning doesnt work. There are too many unaddressed issues in Step 1, such as how you calculate moral progress, how you define moral progress, how you determine that progress is an an upward direction, how you determine that the upward direction tends towards infinity, how you respond to the people who believe that we are actually on a moral decline, and finally you need to explain how moral characteristics are transferred and conserved between forms rather than recreated anew. You have only proven that humans have sinned for a finite amount of time, and nothing more.

    Step 2: "The universe has a cause."

    At the very least, I think the claim that the universe has a cause might be the strongest argument for theism, however that argument would have had a lot more persuasive force 500 years ago than it does today, simply because of the leaps and bounds in scientific progress we've made. The claim "everything has a cause" isnt as obviously true as it used to be. I provided two reasons, a theological reason (namely that free will is not bound by the rules of determinism), and a scientific reason (namely the fact that scientific determinism breaks down at the quantum level).

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    Quote Originally Posted by In My Memory
    - Theological objection:
    This has probably never occurred to you, but if Step 2 is true, then your religion is false, even if God exists or not, because the statement "nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect" is a fundamental denial of free will, on the basis that the cause of all of their actions must come from a prior effect, which in turn must come from a prior cause, ad infinitum until the first cause which you believe to be God. If God is the ultimate cause of everything, he is the ultimate cause of all the evil in the universe, and people never actually made a free choice to believe or disbelieve in God, because all events were set in motion and determined from the very beginning. (Some people have no problem with predestination, but I think that view of God is extremely offensive to religion, because a god who predestines people to go to hell is a monster and not worthy of worship.)

    On the contrary, if people do have free will, then we have at least one example of something in nature happening outside of the laws of cause and effect, which serves to falsify Step 2.
    Because all things have a prior cause including free-will, this poses no problem for the fact that God created. The free-will cause is that God made us in His image and since God is uncreated, this is acceptable. The finding is that the uncreated is the only thing that does not need to be caused since all things in creation are caused.

    God did not create evil, but those beings that existed chose to be evil. God did not force them to be that way, they chose it. Similarly, in God foreseeing all events does not infringe on our free-will. We still choose. To set in motion events is not to pre-program robots, but to allow the free-will to choose freely to receive God or not. God predestinates by foreknowing (Rom. 8.29) our free-choice (John 3.16, see Abel's free-will offering).

    There are two kinds of predestination. One is false, one is true. The one that is false is the kind you describe which is under calvinism. Calvinism is not Christianity. God's way of salvation is to predestinate us by foreknowing our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. This is called OSAS Arminian.

    So as we see here your argument failed you.
    Unfortunately, you didnt reply to my argument at all. My argument was that the process of free will is not bound by determinism, which falsifies Step 2; my argument said nothing about the origin of free will. So essentially, you changed the subject and replied to something I never said, then preceded to say that my original argument was false.

    As I was never talking about the origin of free will or where it comes from, but rather the process of actually making free choices, your rebuttal amounts to nothing.

    So, I must reiterate, you stated, "nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect", and if you believe that people make genuinely free choices (which are not explicable by the rules of determinism), then free will choices are obviously the exception to the rule that all events have a cause and effect, so your statement is false. In fact, you conceded this fact yourself, in your very own words, you said, "Similarly, in God foreseeing all events does not infringe on our free-will. We still choose.", so are free will choices actually determined or not? If not, then Step 2 is false, just as I said it was in the beginning.

    Your reply to my scientific argument was weak, because you insisted that the trillions of events that have a cause and effect implies that everything has a cause and effect. However, that statement isnt true in a technical sense, simply because we have two seperate theories in physics that describe movement in the universe: general relativity referring to the movement of matter and bodies of matter, and quantum mechanics referring to the movement of particles smaller than matter. The first one is what we see everyday, and its deterministic; the second one may not be deterministic.

    You spend all your time focusing on the trillions of cause and effects on the macroscopic world, but you completely ignore all of the trillions of acausal events in the quantum world. In fact, we have a whole branch of science called quantum mechanics which studies these acausal phenomena, formally called quantum indeterminancy. You come across this phenomenon everytime you come in contact with any substance that goes through radioactive decay (on the long-term scale, this would be C-14 decaying into its daughter elements, on the short-term scale this would be phosphorescent paint where the light emitted is a byproduct of decay). For a long time, the process of radioactive decay was very confusing for scientists, because it didnt appear to be a deterministic process, refer to this article on the subject; the decay of atoms isnt correlated to anything, the radiation is more or less the same no matter what the temperature of the substance or its interactions with other substances. In all conditions, and in all tests, a substance will decay with the same rate; however, interestingly, it is not possible to point to any single atom and state that it will decay or not over a half life with more than a 50% certainty (which indistinguishable from chance). And famously, the movement of electrons whizzing around a nucleous appears indeterministic, because as we all know from the uncertainty principle, there is no way to determine the exact position and momentum of an electron simultaneously.

    At the very least, its worth mentioning that quantum physics need not be necessarily indeterministic, see the wikipedia article on the subject:
    Even before the laws of quantum mechanics were fully developed, the phenomenon of radioactivity posed a challenge to determinism. A gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. By all tests known to science these atoms are identical and indistinguishable. Yet about 12600 times a second one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. This decay does not depend on external stimulus and no extant theory of physics predicts when any given atom will decay, with realistically obtainable knowledge. The uranium found on earth is thought to have been synthesized during a supernova explosion that occurred roughly 5 billion years ago. For determinism to hold, every uranium atom must contain some internal "clock" that specifies the exact time it will decay. And somehow the laws of physics must specify exactly how those clocks were set as each uranium atom was formed during the supernova collapse.

    Exposure to alpha radiation can cause cancer. For this to happen, at some point a specific alpha particle must alter some chemical reaction in a cell in a way that results in a mutation. Since molecules are in constant thermal motion, the exact timing of the radioactive decay that produced the fatal alpha particle matters. If probabilistically determined events do have an impact on the macro events, such as whether a person who could have been historically important dies in youth of a cancer caused by a random mutation, then the course of history is not determined from the dawn of time.

    The time dependent Schrödinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time.

    [image here]

    So quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that one accepts the wave function itself as reality (rather than as probability of classical coordinates). Since we have no practical way of knowing the exact magnitudes, and especially the phases, in a full quantum mechanical description of the causes of an observable event, this turns out to be philosophically similar to the "hidden variable" doctrine. [...]

    Asserting that quantum mechanics is deterministic by treating the wave function itself as reality implies a single wave function for the entire universe, starting at the big bang.
    Of course, the above statement has an interesting consequence with respect to the first cause problem:

    - The first being, that if quantum physics is indeterminstic, then at the very least, the beginning of the universe is acausal but also compliant with the laws of physics. I explained this in a little more detail in my last post.

    - The second being, that if quantum physics is really deterministic, and that it is described by the Schrodinger equation, then the universe doesnt need a cause at all, at least not in the explicit sense. The fabric of the universe is a consequence of mathematics, and the energies which fluctuate, including the energies that give rise to those virtual particles, are just a consequence of mathematics; the universe would be no more "caused" than any of the other rules of mathematics. In every possible universe, it is true that pi =
    Code:
    pi = 4 - 3/4 + 5/4 - 7/4 + ...
     
               infinity
                 __   (n*2 + 1)^(-1^n)
    pi = 4  +    \    ----------------
                 /_           4
                n = 1
    The rules of math are necessarily true, they dont need a creator. The universe then, starting from the beginning where it had no space or time, basically a 0-D point, came to exist because the principles of mathematics are necessarily true. God cannot create necessary states of affairs; If you'd like a partial explanation for why this is relevance, there is a short blurb in this article which discusses omnipotence and necessary objects:
    One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion (Meditations, Section 1). Yet, Aquinas and Maimonides held the view that this sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Their view can be defended as follows. It is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs (e.g., that there is a shapeless cube), since if it were, it would be possible for an impossible state of affairs to obtain, which is a contradiction (see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, 25, 3; and Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, Ch. 15). Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs (e.g., that all cubes are shaped). It is possible for an agent, a, to bring about a necessary state of affairs, s, only if possibly, (1) a brings about s, and (2) if a had not acted, then s would have failed to obtain. Because a necessary state of affairs obtains whether or not anyone acts, (2) is false. As a consequence, it is impossible for an agent to bring about either a necessary or an impossible state of affairs.
    The rules of mathematics obtain whether or not God exists or not, and that includes the mathematics that gave rise to the universe in the first place.

    Just as I said originally, the statement "everything has a cause" is very intuitional, but you still havent shown that its true. You merely state that its true without going through the rigors of proving it scientifically, you dont show any of the math you used to arrive at your position (in fact, given that you dont even have a good understanding of calculus, I dont think you even could). This is a profound weakness in your argument, something you never address any further than your own intuitional introspection.

    Of course, all of this is on top of the initial issue I brought up regarding virtual particles. If we accept that the Schrodinger equation is true, then the origin of virtual particles becomes obvious: they are pertubations in the fabric of space, described by mathematics. The rules of mathemathics need no creator, and as the whole quantum universe is just a sea of mathematical equations, then the origin of the universe is unspectacular, its just math. The univese was no more "created" than the rules of math.

    If the Schroding equation is true, then the existence of the universe is necessary, not contingent, so the existence of the universe would obtain whether God exists or not.

    So, this ends my rebuttal to the cosmological block of your proof. By no means is my reply comprehensive, but I simply dont have the time or endurance to write out 14 lengthy posts. I think it should be evident that your cosmological argument isnt persuasive because you're just a laymen, with an extremely limited math background and extremely limited scientific knowledge, and you make a seemingly endless number of presumptuous remarks that undermine the entire proof process; you need to seriously reconsider your argument from the ground up.

    Of course, we both know that even if the cosmological argument is true, stating that the universe has a cause does not prove that Jesus walked on water, so a further reply about the veracity of Christianity is necessary on top of the rebuttal against the cosmological argument.



    However, out of all that I've written above, I want you to specifically notice at least one sentence I've written:
    "the existence of the universe is necessary, not contingent, so the existence of the universe would obtain whether God exists or not."
    That statement does not rule out the existence of God. The universe can exist necessarily, but God can exist and Christianity can be true as well. For this reason, I've only disproved your cosmological argument (that is, if you accept my arguments as valid), but I've not disproved the rest of your proof that Christianity is true.

    For that reason, I will write an additional reply in my next post, and I will respond to your specific claims about the historical accuracy of the Bible. Please do not reply to this post until I have completed my second post. I will continue my rebuttal tomorrow.

    (Oh, and by the way, I searched for Habermas's book that you've recommended, and I was unable to find it at my library. Instead I found a book called Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality, which I looked through briefly, but it didnt look like it had any relevant information that you mentioned, so I didnt bother to pick it up. I will try another library tomorrow.)

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet View Post
    Churchwork,
    Usually, I like to respond to posts in full, but your 14 lengthy replies are too much (I have a day job and a life outside of the internet). It would take me literally days to compile a thorough reply to everything, so in the interest of time saving, I'm going to reduce down your comments to something more manageable.
    Surely, if you have the time to post your own lengthy replies, you can respond to the same. That would only be fair. Try not to overlook anything.
    On the whole, your 4-step proof is a cosmological argument, and although it really has 4 steps, it can be condensed into two blocks:
    1) The cosmological argument, described in steps 1 and 2, to prove that a god exists.
    2) The superlative information, described elsewhere on your site, to show that the god is the Christian god.

    (Steps 3 and 4 are really just pre-rebuttals to critics, not entirely necessary for your proof.)
    On the whole, it is not strictly a cosmological proof, for other elements are involved such as sin, being perfected, atonement, eternal life and the supernatural cause and effects which necessarily need to be covered also. Moreover, since all gods can be disproven, leaving only God of the Bible, this further gives evidence that God of the Bible is the only One this Proof is referring to.

    Step 1 and Step 2 are not proving only a god exists as you think, but the God, God of the Bible. Hence, Step 3 is involved about the Proof to say if you are going to argue against just some god, you are not directly dealing with God of the Bible.

    Within the 4 Step Proof is much discussion that only Christ fulfills these conditions due to His sinlessness, eyewitness testimony of His resurrection by the apostles, their martyrdom for this testimony and of Jesus claiming He is God, the 62 prophecies fulfilled, His unparalleled miracles and the knowledge of our need for atonement for salvation. The only One that walked on Earth and proved He is God was God. Only God could provide the perfect sacrifice in forgiveness of sins and make us eternally presentable to God.

    There is much information on the site as well for a full complex of proofs of God of the Bible, as I said, there is more than one way to prove God of the Bible.

    Step 3 is essential, because almost every single time the person trying to argue against the Proof, he or she is not arguing against the Proof at all. They are just arguing against some god who is not God of the Bible. Step 4 is essential as well, for it intricately does the same thing Step 1 does, except it addresses the supernatural realm. However, I am repeating myself because you are not listening. Do respond to me specifically about this, otherwise you are just behaving belligerently in mindless repetition which is showing you are being disingenuous.
    Thats all it really is, and from the abstract point of view, that style of argumentation isnt much different from the arguments that apologists have been using for centuries. But from the technical point of view, your arguments in the cosmological block are just bizarre, and from the superlative block they arent academic.
    There is no abstraction in Step 1. If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then you would have had an eternity to be perfected and without sin given the exponential progression we see today in our conscience these past 6000 years, and all this is quantifiable in the several examples we have shown. On the other hand, it is very abstract to just discount this obvious observation in nature. The same goes for Step 2. Since we see nothing in nature happening all by itself and only things in nature have themselves a natural cause, then there is no other logical choice we know of than the uncreated created, and in which Jesus Christ none can compare. To deny these truths in their reasonableness is your own abstract confusion. These truths have always been known, so they are nothing new at all.

    For people who don't know what superlative means, it means of the highest kind, quality, or order; surpassing all else or others. Of course Christ has this quality in the Proof of Him.

    Notice your arbitrary self-declaration when you said "just bizarre," but you give no reason for your accusation. I find this bizarre. Satan is the great accuser and mindlessly accuses without any justification whatsoever. You can see your similar traits. I am going to have to award you an Infraction for violating Board Etiquette #6. Stop trying to self-declare things without any meaningful evidence.

    What has been said here is not only academically accepted, but it is a spiritual response. What is spiritual comes out as proper logic and emotionally fulfilling.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet View Post
    Churchwork,
    There is at least one comment I want to address upfront:

    I was Southern Baptist for 20 years, more or less devout. I used my time at college as a spiritual journey, in the hopes that learning more and more about religion would make me a better Christian, so I learned about my religion, learned philosophy, learned mathematics.
    Understand you never were a Christian, that is to say, you never were born-again. You may have thought you were, but we realize you never were because once-saved-always-saved is a Biblical truth. Once you receive eternal life, it can never be lost. Assuming a Southern Baptist is someone who is saved, you were not even a Southern Baptist. You could never have been a better Christian if you never were a Christian. This is your logical fallacy and spiritual dullness to think so. Without the Holy Spirit, you have no ability to even begin a life in Christ. You were just operating from your own strength and self-will apart from God. This is the cause of the fall.

    Shortly afterward, I figured out that "Faith" stopped being a rational justification for belief, because every religious person has faith in their own religions, but not all religious beliefs are equally plausible. Without faith, my only two rational avenues of belief were science and philosophy. Looking toward science, I couldnt find any room for god, for miracles, or the supernatural; looking toward philosophy, I couldnt even define the properties of god (well I could, but I couldnt justify them), and stripping away all of the properties of god that I couldnt justify, I was left with nothing. Atheism was just the end of the road of my spiritual journey.
    Christianity never proposes the idea faith is justified unto itself, for faith is proven. We substantiate things unseen. You actually never learned this principle of abiding in the evidence because you still by faith believe in puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself or there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects when the evidence shows the contrary. Science and philosophy do not conflict with Christianity. They only conflict when they are misused by those with blind propositions such as the ones described that you have.

    Since the evidence points to God creating, it would stand to reason that God could intervene in His own creation. Since the evidence points to God, we have no choice but to accept the obvious that there is the supernatural domain. You could not justify the properties of atheism or agnosticism, even though you shed a blind eye to the proofs of God of the Bible. Atheism then becomes the beginning of the road to perdition in an eternal separation from God. Hell was created just for this purpose, because God is fully aware not everyone made in God's image wants to be saved and be with Him in eternal life.

  5. #45
    Juliet Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Notice your arbitrary self-declaration when you said "just bizarre," but you give no reason for your accusation. I find this bizarre. Satan is the great accuser and mindlessly accuses without any justification whatsoever. You can see your similar traits. I am going to have to award you an Infraction for violating Board Etiquette #6. Stop trying to self-declare things without any meaningful evidence.
    I really wish you'd read my entire post before responding to it, because you replied to basically an introductory paragraph that outlines how I would format my replies to you. If you'd read my entire post, you would have seen where I explained what I meant by "bizarre", which begins with the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet
    The second problem has to do with how exactly you deduced that moral progress really actually inherits from form to form. You said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    It is not possible for the universe to stretch back into infinity because of the very fact, as was shown, if you had an eternity of the past in the universe, then our existence now would have had an eternity to exist in all its previous forms, so that today there would be no sin.
    The question begging is glaring, gaping, and almost taunting Theres no explanation for why a being inherits all of the moral virtues from its previous incarnations (<--- oh my, that sounds a lot like hindu reincarnation!), as opposed to each incarnation being created completely new without inheriting any of its predecessors moral characteristics.
    I'd appreciate it you removed the infraction, as I clearly explained myself in my post. And I'd appreciate it if you'd read my entire post before replying to it.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet View Post
    Churchwork,
    But you're wrong, I dont like living "in sin". If you'd ever seen my posts on other forums, you'd know that I'm extremely principled and morally motivated:
    - I became a vegan in '99 out of principle, in the interest of protecting animals' rights, even when theres no legal consequence for murdering them for the most trivial gains. [Removed advertising].
    - [removed advertising], even when theres no legal consequence for ignoring others' misery and suffering.
    - To the best of my ability, [removed advertising], even when its so much more convenient and cheap for me to save a dollar at the expense of others.
    Of course you like to live in sin, that is why you don't want to be saved from those sins. To start off with your greatest sin is calling Jesus a liar, so He will make a liar out of you. You like this sin. Even in these posts, we see how you willingly shut your mind down and you do like it. Your love of sin is not hard to see.

    Atheists try various techniques to exalt themselves above God like being vegans. This is very common. Eating animals is not a sin, but the cruelty in which animals are treated is a sin.

    Please stop posting links to YOUR forums, including your own to generally search for something unspecifically. This is a violation of Board Etiquette #2 and since you were already advised against this, you are now just being belligerent and warrant an Infraction.

    This thread is for discussion of the 4 Step Proof, not to try to self-exalt yourself which are just self-works to try to self-exalt yourself above God in vain. Let it go. Get back to the Proof.

    I dont think I come off as a person who loves to live in sin, I go far far out of my way and inconvience myself to an extreme, just so I can minimize the harm I cause to feeling beings, because its the right thing to do. God has nothing to do with it.
    To do the right thing is not always for the right reason. Underlying your reason as we have seen is to exalt yourself above God, so it has everything to do with God. This is called salvation by works which is dead. Since nobody can keep the law, anyone who tries to live by the law of good works will die by the law. What God is clearly showing is that all works are in vain because they are founded on self-strength and not through obedience unto God in receive eternal forgivenss from His only begotten Son and then do works that are assured in His will to His good pleasure.

  7. #47
    Juliet Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Please stop posting links to YOUR forums, including your own to generally search for something unspecifically. This is a violation of Board Etiquette #2 and since you were already advised against this, you are now just being belligerent and warrant an Infraction.
    I had no idea it was an infraction to cite my sources in order to prove that I'm not lying to you

    And no, those are not MY forums, I just post on them.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet View Post
    I really wish you'd read my entire post before responding to it, because you replied to basically an introductory paragraph that outlines how I would format my replies to you. If you'd read my entire post, you would have seen where I explained what I meant by "bizarre", which begins with the following:

    I'd appreciate it you removed the infraction, as I clearly explained myself in my post. And I'd appreciate it if you'd read my entire post before replying to it.
    I have read your entire post already adequately enough, and having done so, now I am responding to it piece by piece which works better than posting one long post so you can see the specifics of where you have gone wrong.

    Previously you have accused of "bizarre" so I already know what you meant, but you were unable to give any evidence to your accusation, so it is just the evil spirit in your spirit accusing. As I respond to each section of your post you will see how your accusations are false. Don't be impatient, but read along with each of my responses.

    Since before you did not provide any evidence for your accusation, this is bizarre. Similarly, you will see how your response in your latest lengthy post also is bizarre too and repetition, which is why you earn the violation in Board Etiquette #6. So you can see why this Infraction and the other of your advertising are most applicable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet
    The second problem has to do with how exactly you deduced that moral progress really actually inherits from form to form. You said this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    It is not possible for the universe to stretch back into infinity because of the very fact, as was shown, if you had an eternity of the past in the universe, then our existence now would have had an eternity to exist in all its previous forms, so that today there would be no sin.
    The question begging is glaring, gaping, and almost taunting Theres no explanation for why a being inherits all of the moral virtues from its previous incarnations (<--- oh my, that sounds a lot like hindu reincarnation!), as opposed to each incarnation being created completely new without inheriting any of its predecessors moral characteristics.
    There is no problem with how there is determined the exponential progression in conscience from one instance to the next. In one example, it was acceptable to have multiple spouses. Today it is no longer the case. This is an improvement. Another improvement is no longer do people directly thrown their own children in the mouth of the god Molech. God used Israel to stop this heinous crime. However, there is still a remnant version of it through Islamic suicide mass-murderers when Islam teaches their children at the youngest of ages this is their future.

    Let go of your mindless accusations of taunting and begging, for these are your own traits only. You said "theres no explanation" but the explanation was already given, since we observe it in reality. Your confusion is not witnessing the evidence and relying on your mere self-declarations. Hindu's say your soul can come back and that you can be a dog if you are too sinful. Christians don't say that. Christians know there is a cause and effect to all things. Two people procreate, then a child is born. How is this reincarnation, you don't explain. Your argument becomes mindless therefore. Each new creation is brand new and obviously does inherit something since it was caused by its predecessors. We know the cause is exponentially improving in conscience by witnessing it in reality, in every day life these past 6000 years. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

  9. #49
    Juliet Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    I have read your entire post already adequately enough, and having done so, now I am responding to it piece by piece which works better than posting one long post so you can see the specifics of where you have gone wrong.

    Previously you have accused of "bizarre" so I already know what you meant, but you were unable to give any evidence to your accusation, so it is just the evil spirit in your spirit accusing. As I respond to each section of your thread you will see how your accusations are false. Don't be impatient, but read along with each of my responses.

    Since before you did not provide any evidence for your accusation, this is bizarre. Similarly, you will see how your response in your latest lengthy post also is just repetition, which is why you earn the violation in Board Etiquette #6. So you can see why this Infraction and the other on your advertising are most applicable.
    I already know where this is going: I'm going to get banned for arbitrary reasons because you're too cowardly to defend your proof. As long as you can ban the critics from your forum, you never have to see or hear their arguments, so you mislead people into believing their arent any critics at all. That must be the reason why there are 100s of threads on this board, that you've started, but no one has replied to... because you systematically ban everyone from this forum; either you dont know how to moderate a forum to save your life, or you like talking to yourself, but either way its hilarious.

    Believe me, if you had to adhere to the rules of your forum, you'd be banned in an instant.

    In fact, you should be banned for exceeding tolerable limits of irony with this:
    Satan is the great accuser and mindlessly accuses without any justification whatsoever. You can see your similar traits. I am going to have to award you an Infraction for violating Board Etiquette #6. Stop trying to self-declare things without any meaningful evidence.
    My jaw dropped after reading that. I cant believe that YOU are accusing ME of self-declaring facts without evidence. Unbelievable. Jesus wasnt very fond of hypocrites, you know.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juliet View Post
    I already know where this is going: I'm going to get banned for arbitrary reasons because you're too cowardly to defend your proof. As long as you can ban the critics from your forum, you never have to see or hear their arguments, so you mislead people into believing their arent any critics at all.
    If you do get banned, the reason will be because of your profusely sinning bearing false witness. You can see by the Infractions given so far which were warranted that you can easily change and not conduct yourself that way. Stop advertising your own forum for the last time. Stop making self-declarations for a 5 year old can do that.

    What people should take from this is how you sin with false accusations and you like it. There are lots of posters that have posted on these forums and have given their criticism, but for them to continue with the same argument after I gave the response, and they don't respond to it, shows their belligerency, and this is how you have been caught in doing the same thing. Since you have been shown this is not like the cosmological arguments your preconceived notions are use to, then stop arguing for that they are the same. Do you see your belligerency yet?

    One is not cowardly for pointing out another's mindless repetitions and your shutting their mind down. This takes courage to speak up for the truth. It should be quite reasonable for you to let go of your bad behavior. After these warnings have been given and you still don't change, that should be indication to you that you like your sin too much.

    Believe me, if you had to adhere to the rules of your forum, you'd be banned in an instant. In fact, you should be banned for exceeding tolerable limits of irony with this:
    Satan is the great accuser and mindlessly accuses without any justification whatsoever. You can see your similar traits. I am going to have to award you an Infraction for violating Board Etiquette #6. Stop trying to self-declare things without any meaningful evidence.
    My jaw dropped after reading that. I cant believe that YOU are accusing ME of self-declaring facts without evidence. Unbelievable. Jesus wasnt very fond of hypocrites, you know.
    I do adhere to the rules of my forum. If I didn't, you could show it. Moreover, you are not even banned yet. If you look at the point Infractions and how they work, you will see when you come close to being put into moderation or being banned. If when being banned, time allows for you to come out of it. But if you keep going back into a banned status, then it is reasonable for a moderator to ban you permanently, since you just don't want to change and the body of Christ should not continue to cast what is holy unto dogs forever. There is no irony in this statement given to you. You had accused falsely without basis, and I showed you your accusation which you left out. So it stands. If you are going to accuse this way at least provide something worth considering. I had said,
    Notice your arbitrary self-declaration when you said "just bizarre," but you give no reason for your accusation. I find this bizarre.
    My jaw did not drop when you did this, for this is how an atheist behaves. Jesus didn't even respond on an occasion because the accusation was so mindless. What can you say to such animals? Jesus is not fond of hypocrites, so he spoke firmly against the Pharisees. I try to use the same approach Jesus uses, when I speaking with you as I am led by the Holy Spirit.

    You are using the word "bizarre" quite profusely, but each time you use it, you accuse falsely. Take a look at the first time you used it, "Of course, I want to note that your Step 1 makes a bizarre claim that is never substantiated or explained: that given an infinite amount of time, that humans would become infinitely righteous... the problem being that you havent shown that humans will even exist indefinitely. I think its extremely likely that we will kill each other off long before infinity. So the human species has a start, and it has an end, just like every other species that has ever existed. If the universe were eternal, we would have ceased to exist an eternity ago". Here was my response,
    It is so easy to misread. I did not say an infinite amount of time would allow for righteousness, but that if having had an eternity of the past in cause and effects, we would be without sin. We are only focused here on the matter of sin, not on righteousnesses. We don't even need to show if humans will exist for eternity (though we will) in the future. All we need show is that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects we would be without sin, and we showed this by showing today the exponential progression of conscience these past six thousand years. It can reasonably be expected that the human race will live such an extremely long time it is close enough to approach infinity.
    The human race can move out to solar system after solar system and galaxy after galaxy. Then it would be reasonable to believe that we can live for a heck of a long time and take up every last ounce of the universe for billions and billions if not trillions of years. Unlike every other creature we know, only humans have God-consciousness and a self-awareness of the degree of the soul made in God's image. So it is not reasonable to think we would have annihilated ourselves. There is no precedence for our even coming close to that point. Though Jesus said He needs to return otherwise we would have done great damage to ourselves, He is not saying ceasing to exist.
    The idea we would have annihilated ourselves does not hold sway since the evidence speaks for exponential progression of our conscience these past 6000 years, which is quite the opposite of your failing idea. Notice too you provide no evidence for your assumption. Again, the difference between Christians and atheists or agnostics is we can prove our case.
    You should be able to see your problem. You accuse by misunderstanding something, then I showed you how you misunderstood, then you accuse again of bizarre, but such lack of love in first erring is followed up by erring again without repentance which is bizarre in God's eyes. How many times does it take for you to begin to realize such false accusations each time stem from your own selfish misunderstanding? Therefore, you can see why your violation of the rules of this forum are worthy of an Infraction - Board Etiquette #6.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 4 Step Proof for God & Minimal Facts Approach
    By Churchwork in forum Minimal Facts Approach
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 08:31 PM
  2. Regarding the 4 Step Proof for God
    By Marquis Naryshkin in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 10:08 PM
  3. Questions About the 4 Step Proof
    By Silverhammer in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 05:07 PM
  4. 4 Step Proof for God - True or False?
    By whatisup in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 05:41 PM
  5. My Issues With the 4 Step Proof for God
    By adrian in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 02:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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