Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 150

Thread: 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

  1. #131
    Will Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork
    If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had nearly an eternity to be perfected without sin (along the exponential progression of conscience which we observe), but since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects.
    While the propositions above are not demonstrated, the argument is linear, so I take no issue with it.

    And thus, we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ.
    This part doesn't follow from the first part at all. The first part of section (1) addresses sin, and the limitation of time. The second part, despite having "and thus" in front of it, is completely unconnected to the first part, and then adds "since none can compare to Christ." While that may be true, you have not demonstrated it, so it can't be said to be part of the proof (unless more information is added).

    Here, I'm assuming that when you write "proof", you're referring to a logical proof. Having broken two rules of logic in the first section already, it's safe to say that your proof is broken.

    I'm not interested in the money you've offered (if I were, then I would be breaking the rules of your forum) so that's not the issue. I'm interested in good arguments.

    The first part of your proof is clearly broken, so let's deal with that before we go on.

  2. #132
    Will Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    However, since you still sin, you know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects.
    This seems to imply not that the universe is not infinite, but that the existence of mankind has not been infinite. Unless there's another group that can sin that I'm unaware of.

  3. #133
    Will Guest

    Default

    Another thing that's slightly off is suggesting that "nothing in nature is without a cause" (that is, everything in nature has a cause, by distribution), but then concluding that nature itself has a cause. It doesn't exactly follow.

    If your argument suggested that all natures have a cause, it would follow. I don't know how you would figure that, though. Otherwise, you're making a fallacy of composition in step (2).

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    While the propositions above are not demonstrated, the argument is linear, so I take no issue with it.
    It's demonstrated in the 4 Step Proof page with several data points. It is exponential, not linear, so you would be taking issue with it, since you think it is linear.

    This part doesn't follow from the first part at all. The first part of section (1) addresses sin, and the limitation of time. The second part, despite having "and thus" in front of it, is completely unconnected to the first part, and then adds "since none can compare to Christ." While that may be true, you have not demonstrated it, so it can't be said to be part of the proof (unless more information is added).
    Step 1 addresses the expansiveness of time as well as its limitation. Mankind would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So the universe had to have been created. What comes after "And thus," is: "we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ." Logically, it does follows the prior sentence: "since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects."

    Throughout the 4 Step Proof I talk about the Minimal Facts Approach, resurrection appearances, multiple attestation, we are all sinners, a sinner needs a Savior, only God will suffice, and how and why only Jesus can be God. I interject with such comments when applicable to that portion of the proof.

    Read the paragraph: "As to the matter of comparison with all other faiths or belief systems, only the word of God shows and proves man can't save himself. Only in Christianity does God come down to save man to bring us up to Him. We can't do it ourselves. Man was born into sin, proven by the fact that no man has never not sinned. All other views are works-based belief systems and therefore, utterly fail. Their deities don't take on the likeness of flesh as Jesus did who we confirm proved to exclusivity of the world that He alone is the fullness of the Godhead bodily by His resurrection proof (using the 66 books of the Bible) with emphasis on the Minimal Facts Approach."

    Here, I'm assuming that when you write "proof", you're referring to a logical proof. Having broken two rules of logic in the first section already, it's safe to say that your proof is broken.

    I'm not interested in the money you've offered (if I were, then I would be breaking the rules of your forum) so that's not the issue. I'm interested in good arguments.

    The first part of your proof is clearly broken, so let's deal with that before we go on.
    Your two alleged broken rules of logic have fallen back upon you for your mistaken assumptions. Why would you be breaking the rules of the forums desiring the money?

    Before we go on, you would need to have a change of mind with regard to your mistaken assumptions.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    This seems to imply not that the universe is not infinite, but that the existence of mankind has not been infinite. Unless there's another group that can sin that I'm unaware of.
    It not only applies to mankind but the universe and time itself, because if there was an eternity of the past, mankind would have approximated into the eternity of that past and therefore, would not still be sinning as much as we do. Same applies to "heat death". Dissipation would be far greater than it is even though massive amount of energy is stored in an atom.

    Another thing that's slightly off is suggesting that "nothing in nature is without a cause" (that is, everything in nature has a cause, by distribution), but then concluding that nature itself has a cause. It doesn't exactly follow.
    By distribution? Since the first event in nature is in nature and all things in nature have a cause, then it too has a cause; plus, nothing always comes from nothing. Nothing can't produce something anymore than multiplying 0 x some number will produce a number greater than zero. No matter how much you multiply something to nothing, nothing still produces nothing. I think I learned that in grade 1. Grade 1 students can believe in God by God's proof of Himself by observing simple facts of nature.

    If your argument suggested that all natures have a cause, it would follow. I don't know how you would figure that, though. Otherwise, you're making a fallacy of composition in step (2).
    "Nothing" does not exist because it is nothing, therefore, it cannot do anything, cause anything. How can the universe be besides nothing? "Nothing" doesn't exist. How can the universe be inside "nothing"? It's impossible, since nothing is nothing.

  6. #136
    Will Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    It's demonstrated in the 4 Step Proof page with several data points. It is exponential, not linear, so you would be taking issue with it, since you think it is linear.
    I mean I take no issue with the first part of the argument, which is, itself, a linear progression illustrating why you believe that there is a limit on time. I wasn't saying that your progression of conscience wasn't exponential, which I won't argue. Simple misunderstanding.

    Of course, you're suggesting a limit on sin, which I think is only a limit on the time that mankind has been around, so again, I agree.

    Mankind would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. So the universe had to have been created.
    Those two statements do not follow. You're suggesting that

    1) Mankind would not be sinning given an infinite amount of time, and
    2) The universe had to have been created.

    There is nothing to connect those two statements logically, and (2) has not been demonstrated.

    What comes after "And thus," is: "we know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ." Logically, it does follows the prior sentence: "since we still sin more than would be the case, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects."
    That doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you haven't connected the statements above. You've now given:

    1) None can compare to Christ, therefore
    2) We know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible

    There's once again nothing to connect those two statements. If you'd like to connect those statements for me with additional information, that's fine. But as presented, this cannot be considered part of a logical proof.

    Your two alleged broken rules of logic have fallen back upon you for your mistaken assumptions.
    You'll have to clarify what you think I've mistaken, because I see no way to connect your statements. If you can see clearly how I've misinterpreted connected statements as non sequiturs, you're welcome to fill in the parts that connect them.

    There may simply be missing information in the argument that you know, and I do not, and you have forgotten to include it, thinking it was implied.

    Why would you be breaking the rules of the forums desiring the money?
    Rule 7: Agenda. Taking money from you would necessarily break this rule, as it would hinder the purpose of the forums, which is to bring together 12 informal apostles.

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    I mean I take no issue with the first part of the argument, which is, itself, a linear progression illustrating why you believe that there is a limit on time. I wasn't saying that your progression of conscience wasn't exponential, which I won't argue. Simple misunderstanding.

    Of course, you're suggesting a limit on sin, which I think is only a limit on the time that mankind has been around, so again, I agree.
    That time is linear says nothing about whether conscience is exponential, for if there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects or not, time is still linear, whether it be a short or long linear. I made no mention of time being linear or not, so you would be wrong in saying that is why I believe there is a limit on time. As to limit on time, I don't believe there is a limit on it going forward, but it was created by God whence it did not exist before.

    Either way your usage of time, they are both wrong. I would just chuck the whole thing in the garbage and don't bring it up again, because it is nonsense.

    Those two statements do not follow. You're suggesting that

    1) Mankind would not be sinning given an infinite amount of time, and
    2) The universe had to have been created.

    There is nothing to connect those two statements logically, and (1) has not been demonstrated.
    The exponential progression of conscience is proven with various data given in the proof which you don't address. You're repeating like a clanging bell. To repeat, the universe had to have been created since mankind would have existed in the proximity to an alleged eternity of the past; therefore, we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

    That doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that you haven't connected the statements above. You've now given:

    1) None can compare to Christ, therefore
    2) We know we were created by uncreated, God of the Bible

    There's once again nothing to connect those two statements. If you'd like to connect those statements for me with additional information, that's fine. But as presented, this cannot be considered part of a logical proof.
    The connection was made the uncreated exists and the reason was given which you didn't challenge, so then find out He is by comparison. And to repeat yet again, by comparison, throughout the proof, none can compare. You're not be logical. Try not to repeat your mistake.

    You'll have to clarify what you think I've mistaken, because I see no way to connect your statements. If you can see clearly how I've misinterpreted connected statements as non sequiturs, you're welcome to fill in the parts that connect them.

    There may simply be missing information in the argument that you know, and I do not, and you have forgotten to include it, thinking it was implied.
    Your mistaken assumptions are the various paragraphs of the proof don't compare Jesus adequately enough to prove He is God. You assume that the comparing process follows the previous statement as already an accomplished fact even though it was placed in paragraphs to indicate you need to observation the evidence why only Jesus is God. You're assuming something can come from nothing. Whether in another composition or not, nothing is nothing. And claiming the data is not adequate for the exponential progression of conscience, but since you don't observe that data, how can you be so sure?

    Rule 7: Agenda. Taking money from you would necessarily break this rule, as it would hinder the purpose of the forums, which is to bring together 12 informal apostles.
    The level of agenda is not specified. It's flexible.

  8. #138
    Will Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Either way your usage of time, they are both wrong. I would just chuck the whole thing in the garbage and don't bring it up again, because it is nonsense.
    I was agreeing with you. I have no problem with the argument that given infinite time, man will be without sin.

    The exponential progression of conscience is proven with various data given in the proof which you don't address. You're repeating like a clanging bell.
    My fault. I tried to edit my post as quickly as I could, but it seems you found it before I could edit that (2) had not been shown, rather than (1). I have no problem with the progression of conscience you present. The jump to "the universe had to have been created", on the other hand, isn't logical.

    A limited time frame on the past simply means that you're arguing the universe began at some point, not that it was created.

    The connection was made the uncreated exists and the reason was given which you didn't challenge, so then find out He is by comparison. And to repeat yet again, by comparison, throughout the proof, none can compare. You're not be logical. Try not to repeat your mistake.
    I'm not sure what you mean. You haven't shown that none compare to Christ in the proof. You may have shown it elsewhere, just not in the proof. Perhaps you're assuming that you've put more information into the proof than you actually have.

    Your mistaken assumptions are the various paragraphs of the proof don't compare Jesus adequately enough to prove He is God.
    I've obviously missed something important. Can you show me in the proof where there's a comparison that proves Jesus is God? I've looked, and I can't find it.

    You assume that the comparing process follows the previous statement as already an accomplished fact even though it was placed in paragraphs to indicate you need to observation the evidence why only Jesus is God.
    Should I be looking somewhere else for this evidence? It's not in the proof.

    You're assuming something can come from nothing.
    I am? Where did I write that?

    My problem with your argument is that it isn't a logical proof.

  9. #139
    Will Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Since the first event in nature is in nature and all things in nature have a cause, then it too has a cause
    That's still a category mistake. Things in nature are IN nature; they are not natures themselves. If events in nature must have a cause, that says nothing about the whole of nature, or whether or not all natures have a cause.

    Nothing can't produce something anymore than multiplying 0 x some number will produce a number greater than zero. No matter how much you multiply something to nothing, nothing still produces nothing.
    Of course. I'm not suggesting that something came from nothing. If you want to know what I believe, I'd say that everything was packed into a nearly infinitely dense point. "Before" that, I don't know what happened. It's difficult to say "before", though, as time didn't exist before space.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    I was agreeing with you. I have no problem with the argument that given infinite time, man will be without sin.
    I understand that you are agreeing with the exponential progression of conscience. That's not the issue I raised in the last post. You weren't agreeing, because you said you "take no issue with the first part of the argument, which is, itself, a linear progression illustrating why you believe that there is a limit on time." I never said time as "a linear progression" was why I believe time was created. There was really no need for you to mention time as a liner progression, because whether time is infinitely in the past or not it is still linear, so it is irrelevant, and besides, reusing the word progression in another sense in the same setting is terribly confusing to the reader. That's why I said just drop your linear progression statement. Ridiculous!

    My fault. I tried to edit my post as quickly as I could, but it seems you found it before I could edit that (2) had not been shown, rather than (1). I have no problem with the progression of conscience you present. The jump to "the universe had to have been created", on the other hand, isn't logical.
    I showed the connection already. As was said, it is true man would not still be sinning if there was an eternity of the past (you agreed); so, since man still sins (more than otherwise would be the case) a past eternity does not exist, and since a past eternity does not exist it follows the universe requires a beginning of being created. There is no other option. Either the universe always existed or it has a beginning of being created (Step 4 addresses the supernatural before the universe if an atheist wanted to argue that route).

    A limited time frame on the past simply means that you're arguing the universe began at some point, not that it was created.
    It had to have been created because something can't come from nothing. Zero can never make itself equal 1 or more. You're violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

    I'm not sure what you mean. You haven't shown that none compare to Christ in the proof. You may have shown it elsewhere, just not in the proof. Perhaps you're assuming that you've put more information into the proof than you actually have.
    In the proof it is established none can compare to Christ since only Christ effectively deals with sin and you can find fault with the other 3 belief systems. There are only 4 accessible major categories and the other 3 fail which leaves only Christianity. The resurrection is proven. Tangible prophecies fulfilled is a fourth reason. So none can compare to Christ. Stop repeating there is not this evidence provided, I am now just repeating myself to your repetition, but you don't respond in kind.

    I've obviously missed something important. Can you show me in the proof where there's a comparison that proves Jesus is God? I've looked, and I can't find it.
    I already gave you one paragraph. I said to read the paragraph:

    "As to the matter of comparison with all other faiths or belief systems, only the word of God shows and proves man can't save himself. Only in Christianity does God come down to save man to bring us up to Him. We can't do it ourselves. Man was born into sin, proven by the fact that no man has never not sinned. All other views are works-based belief systems and therefore, utterly fail. Their deities don't take on the likeness of flesh as Jesus did who we confirm proved to exclusivity of the world that He alone is the fullness of the Godhead bodily by His resurrection proof (using the 66 books of the Bible) with emphasis on the Minimal Facts Approach."

    There are many more such paragraphs dispersed throughout.

    Should I be looking somewhere else for this evidence? It's not in the proof.
    Obviously you are not reading.

    I am? Where did I write that?

    My problem with your argument is that it isn't a logical proof.
    You were arguing for fallacy of composition to reject that the universe requires a cause.

    If something is illogical then why can't you show it? By making a claim and then not be able to show it is itself illogical.

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
  •