Atheists Don't Think Right

[Churchwork]

Don't worry about who God is yet or even if He exists, just realize the universe needs a cause and can't come from nothing. Let me know if you have reached that point yet. If you were to find a cause for radioactive decay or whatever, you would still say something else could happen all by itself. Are you like a 3 year old? Why do you need to hold out to know all things to know if the universe requires a cause? Atheism is inherently self-contradictory, because it claims you need to be all-knowing to know if the universe can't come from nothing, but if you were the all-knowing God then atheism would be false. You are claiming you have to be God to know if God exists! That could be the most obnoxious, self-exalted thing I have ever heard. You don't care about logic and evidence do you? There is observably proven trillions of causes in nature and no hard evidence something (in nature) comes from that which does not exist. The absurdity of false humility goes hand in hand with arrogance. Why shut your mind down to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt?

[encolpius]

Atheists Don't Think Right
Don't worry about who God is yet or even if He exists, just realize the universe needs a cause and can't come from nothing. Let me know if you have reached that point yet.

I can't reach that point unless you provide a definition of "universe." Do you mean the totality of existence, or some aspect or subset of existence? If, by "universe," you mean "everything that exists, taken as a whole," I see no reason to posit a cause. In fact, the very notion of a "cause" for existence is contradictory, as any purported "cause" for existence would itself first have to exist. Existence exists, it didn't "come from nothing" (it didn't "come from" anything); neither was it caused. It simply is.

If you were to find a cause for radioactive decay or whatever, you would still say something else could happen all by itself. Are you like a 3 year old?

I don't think something could "happen" uncaused. If an existent changes, it changes due to some property it possesses (its identity) or because it was affected by some other existent. Existence, taken as a whole, simply is. It didn't "happen all by itself." It didn't "happen" at all. It simply is.

Why do you need to hold out to know all things to know if the universe requires a cause?

I don't "need to hold out to know all things" to know that the universe (taken as existence as a whole) does not need a cause. Universal knowledge is not needed to understand that positing a cause for existence is contradictory. A non-existent cause cannot cause anything.

Atheism is inherently self-contradictory, because it claims you need to be all-knowing to know if the universe can't come from nothing, but if you were the all-knowing God then atheism would be false.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. I don't need to be all-knowing to understand that nothing comes from nothing. Simple logic will suffice.

You are claiming you have to be God to know if God exists! That could be the most obnoxious, self-exalted thing I have ever heard.

Have you ever really listened to an atheist? I mean really listened, with an effort to understand their arguments. Not set up straw men and caricatures. I would not have to be God to know if He exists, and I don't know why you assume I would claim that. Simple logic is enough, however, to know that the God of traditional Christian theism is contradictory and cannot exist.

You don't care about logic and evidence do you?

Actually, logic and evidence are precisely why I lost my belief in God. Lack of good evidence (the God posited by Christian Theism seems completely arbitrary), coupled with logical inconsistencies in the traditional definition of the Christian God, are enough to know thatsuch a god does not exist.

There is observably proven trillions of causes in nature and no hard evidence something (in nature) comes from that which does not exist. The absurdity of false humility goes hand in hand with arrogance. Why shut your mind down to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Why do you think that atheism (lack of a belief in a god or gods) entails "something (in nature) come[ing] from that which does not exist"?

[Churchwork]

Many atheists say something comes from that which does not exist to cause the universe. I am simply responding to their claims and showing in Step 2 of the 4 Step Proof for God this is not possible. Step 1 addresses your claim that you think the universe always existed, which is also impossible.

Once you realize the universe needs a cause and can't always have been existing then you are left with no other option than to accept the only possibility that is left, there must be an uncaused cause. To say it "simply is" is to say it always existed, but it can't always have existed because mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are on and of course, heat death would be far greater than it is.

Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a God. That's what the word means. Whereas Atheism is the claim God does not exist, otherwise, what word in the English language exists to say "God does not exist"? That word is Atheism.

Since you are unable to find or show any contradictions in God's word then realize you are wrong. Furthermore, to prove God's existence and Jesus is God you do not need to depend in inerrancy of the Bible, so though you may have issue with a million things, you can still be sure Jesus is God by the Minimal Facts Approach. Amen.

[Churchwork]

What I found most disingenuous is you avoided dealing with the beginning part of the Preview to the 4 Step Proof for God which deals with the exponential progression of conscience and heat death that disallow an always existent universe from the past. Perhaps you should tackle this essential part of the Proof.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

[encolpius]

What I found most disingenuous is you avoided dealing with the beginning part of the Preview to the 4 Step Proof for God which deals with the exponential progression of conscience and heat death that disallow an always existent universe from the past. Perhaps you should tackle this essential part of the Proof.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

I was responding to the content contained in the opening post of this thread entitled "Atheists Don't Think Right." I'm happy to go through the entire proof at the link you provided, however, line by line, and discuss it.

[Churchwork]

Oh I thought you were familiar with Step 1 of the Proof as well, not just Step 2. You mean to say you never heard of Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof? By all means give it a try, it's designed to lead you to God. Once the atheist agrees with one of these steps he immediately clings to one of the other arguments which one of the other 3 steps cover. For example, in your other post you are misrepresenting God of the Bible thus violating Step 3. So you agree with Step 2, violate Step 3, but have not dealt with Step 1 or Step 4 yet. Once you repent of contravening Step 3 and find yourself unable to disprove Step 1 & 4, then you know at that point the uncreated Who created does indeed exist.

It's really quite elementary. I love it. Simple and sweet; nobody is without excuse, because wall inherently know this already in our spirit of God-consciousness. I have other arguments for God, but I like to start off with the best of the best proofs for God and that is the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm). Though the other proofs can be availed they are not necessary to prove God if the 4 Step Proof does the job and it does it the best.

[encolpius]

Let's go through your proof one paragraph at a time:

God said He proves Himself by observing nature.

Right away you assume that your God exists and has spoken. It isn't clear what you mean by "proves himself," but I take it to mean "proves he exists." Also, God appears to be the entity "observing nature" in your sentence. I think you are trying to say the following: "According to God, God's existence is proven by observing nature." Now, I know that many Christians make the claim that God can be proven to exist by observing nature, but I'm not willing to accept the claim (without further proof) that God has in fact said this.

Let's see if He is right. 1) Something can't come from that which does not exist, so the universe requires a cause.

I agree that something can't come from that which does not exist. The conclusion I draw from this, however, is that there must always have been something. Before I accept your proposition that "the universe requires a cause," I need to know how you are defining "universe." Do you mean the totality of existence, some aspect or subset of existence, the sum total of presently existing things? As I noted above, if you take the universe to mean "everything that exists, taken as a whole," then there never was a point at which the universe was caused (because for existence to be caused, its cause would first have to exist). Please explain what you mean by "universe."

2) The universe can't always have existed because a) heat death would be far greater than it is . . .

The heat death argument overlooks a number of points. First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is probabilistic. A closed system can fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entropy states (it's just highly improbable). Given an eternity of time, the present entropy state of the universe is not an impossibility. Second, the heat death argument assumes that the universe as a whole is a closed system. Taken as a whole, a spatially limitless universe would not be subject to entropy. Applying the concept of energy to the universe as a whole drops the context in which entropy has been observed to occur (closed systems), and applies it to an entirely different context (an eternal, spatially unlimited whole).

. . . and b) mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity and not still be sinning to the extent it still does along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on.

I'm afraid I don't understand this well enough to evaluate it. Some definitions are in order. First, what does it mean for mankind to be "approximated into" past eternity. "Approximated into" is not a phrase with which I am familiar. Could you please define it and provide some examples? Second, "sin" can mean "transgression against the law of God" or "an act that estranges the self from God." If this is the sense in which you use the word "sin," then your "perfect proof" is assuming the very existence of the God it is attempting to prove. If, however, you mean simply an act that is wrong or a serious shortcoming, why use the term "sin" at all, as that term can be confusing given its widely used religious definition? Third, I have no idea what you mean by "exponential progression of conscience," or why it is clear that we are on such a progression. Please provide a definition and some examples. Then I will be in a position to evaluate the above-quoted sentence, and whether it constitutes proof that the universe (however that is defined) can't always have existed. I'm not trying to nitpick here, it's just that this part of the introduction is very confusing to me.

What other option is there than the uncaused (uncreated) created?

It is unclear whether "created" in the sentence is an adjective (in which case it is a contradiction, positing an uncreated created entity), or as a verb with "the uncaused (uncreated)" as the subject, in which case you should have said "What other option is there than that the uncaused (uncreated) created"? One viable alternative option to "the uncaused (uncreated) creating the universe" is that the universe itself (existence, taken as a whole) is uncaused and uncreated, with no creative act necessary.

Atheism is utterly destroyed and morally bankrupt because it has no answer and never will.

I have provided an alternative option above: the universe (existence taken as a whole) is uncaused and uncreated, and no creation is necessary. Let's discuss that option before concluding that atheism (lack of a belief in a god or gods) is destroyed and morally (intellectually?) bankrupt.

You would have to be God (having omniscience) to know if God exists when you hold out having to know all things to be sure. You are saying you won't accept proof of God unless you are God. Wow!

I do not claim that I would have to be omniscient to know whether God exists. The assertion that I won't accept proof of God unless I am God is an absurd ad hominem, and I have no idea why you think that. I view knowledge as a mental grasping of the facts of reality that is reached through perception or a process of reason based on perception. Certainty can be obtained if the evidence for a belief is conclusive within the context of one's knowledge. Knowledge of new facts can strengthen or decrease one's certainty. One does not need to know everything or be infallible to have knowledge, including knowledge of whether God exists. At present (within the present context of my knowledge of the facts of reality), I do not see any good reason to believe in God. However, I could very well be mistaken may be evidence of which I am not aware or logical proof based on evidence that I have not properly considered.

I would like to discuss these points one at a time before moving on to the next paragraph of the 4 Step Perfect Proof. Please address the specific points I have raised, as they are preventing me from being able to meaningfully evaluate and accept the proof. If any of my questions are addressed or clarified later in the proof, feel free to point that out so I can make a note of it and we can then discuss it further when we reach that point in the proof. Once we have discussed the questions I have raised in this post, we can move on to the second paragraph of the perfect proof, which I have not yet read (I want to let you see firsthand the reaction of at least one atheist reading the proof for the very first time, as it may help, if you ever decide to revise or rewrite it, to know what common misconceptions or reservations new readers might have). While I may rely on my own research and sources in this discussion, I will refrain for the time being from reading any other discussions or criticisms of your specific proof in order to have my own judgment on it uninfluenced by the opinion of others (all the better to keep an open mind).

[Churchwork]

Let's go through your proof one paragraph at a time:
Let's. But as all literary writers would tell you, you should read it through once first because all your issues are already raised, I can assure you. I've been around the block and then some. That will save time from you asking a question and later feeling stupid for asking it when it was already answered in the Proof. Why do you think it is so long? For the very reason, people have questions, so those questions are answered.


God said He proves Himself by observing nature.

Right away you assume that your God exists and has spoken. It isn't clear what you mean by "proves himself," but I take it to mean "proves he exists." Also, God appears to be the entity "observing nature" in your sentence. I think you are trying to say the following: "According to God, God's existence is proven by observing nature." Now, I know that many Christians make the claim that God can be proven to exist by observing nature, but I'm not willing to accept the claim (without further proof) that God has in fact said this.

By saying what God of the Bible says does not assume He exists. Why assume that? Rather, if what is presented as God of the Bible in the Bible holds true in proving Himself, then we know He is true. The Bible is the proof for God and not any God but just God of the Bible since we embed within it the resurrection and many other details in comparing all religions and why God must be accessible. It's clear "proves himself" means proving His existence. God is not nature, but by observing nature, as was said, you can discern God's existence, because nature itself can't derive itself, thus needing a cause and that cause must be uncaused, for no other option exists; this being the very proof of God. God said it:

"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, 'even' his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse" (Rom 1.20). There is no other way to interpret this verse. The universe can't always have been existing nor can it come from nothing: "being perceived through the things" of nature.


Let's see if He is right. 1) Something can't come from that which does not exist, so the universe requires a cause.

I agree that something can't come from that which does not exist. The conclusion I draw from this, however, is that there must always have been something. Before I accept your proposition that "the universe requires a cause," I need to know how you are defining "universe." Do you mean the totality of existence, some aspect or subset of existence, the sum total of presently existing things? As I noted above, if you take the universe to mean "everything that exists, taken as a whole," then there never was a point at which the universe was caused (because for existence to be caused, its cause would first have to exist). Please explain what you mean by "universe."

The universe includes all things in nature. How can you think the universe would include only a subset say 90% of the universe? That's silly. Once upon a time before time the universe did not exist. I prefer someone address Step 1 of the Proof first which deals with why the universe can't always have been existing. You are jumping to Step 2 first. Since the uncreated must exist since nature can't cause itself, come from nothing or always have been existing, we know logically the uncreated exists and proves Himself by the resurrection.


2) The universe can't always have existed because a) heat death would be far greater than it is . . .

The heat death argument overlooks a number of points. First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is probabilistic. A closed system can fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entropy states (it's just highly improbable). Given an eternity of time, the present entropy state of the universe is not an impossibility. Second, the heat death argument assumes that the universe as a whole is a closed system. Taken as a whole, a spatially limitless universe would not be subject to entropy. Applying the concept of energy to the universe as a whole drops the context in which entropy has been observed to occur (closed systems), and applies it to an entirely different context (an eternal, spatially unlimited whole).

Probabilities are just a way to express likelihood of occurrence but in no way deny the law of cause and effect in the Laws of Thermodynamics. NASA is convinced the universe will never implode on itself. They call the universe geometrically not a closed or open universe, but a flat universe (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html) which means the universe is flattening out (layman's terms), reaching an equilibrium. New Atheists agree with this, but they read it differently by saying ridiculously the universe has zero energy because it all cancels out so the universe is nothing, has zero energy and comes from nothing (refuted in Step 2). Scientists say if it was a closed system it would implode, but they are more than 99% sure that will not happen. I like to go with the evidence as was said in Romans 1.20. So heat death would be far greater than it is and sin would be less per capita. Though you may feel comfortable going against what is scientifically proven, I don't. The test before us is if you are willing to be humble enough to go with this evidence despite your predisposition of hostility toward God. The dissipation of the universe, the spreading out of energy, is what we mean by greater heat death. It would be far greater than it is now, which shows the universe could not always have been existing. Your argument fails entirely because science today agrees completely the universe will never implode. It's like you are still shouting from the tree tops the earth is flat.

What really gets you is if even man did not know the geometric shape of the universe it still would not matter, for an imploding and exploding universe from an eternity of the past still needs an explanation as all explosions do. Where does this big bang come from? You can't say it comes from an implosion, because that is no explanation, for an implosion needs an explosion. You need to explain where the explosion came from if you want to be honest with yourself. You can't say it comes from an implosion. That's begging the question. The idol of implosion explosion is mindless and you are free to be mindless to reject God. God gave you this free will.


. . . and b) mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity and not still be sinning to the extent it still does along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on.

I'm afraid I don't understand this well enough to evaluate it. Some definitions are in order. First, what does it mean for mankind to be "approximated into" past eternity. "Approximated into" is not a phrase with which I am familiar. Could you please define it and provide some examples? Second, "sin" can mean "transgression against the law of God" or "an act that estranges the self from God." If this is the sense in which you use the word "sin," then your "perfect proof" is assuming the very existence of the God it is attempting to prove. If, however, you mean simply an act that is wrong or a serious shortcoming, why use the term "sin" at all, as that term can be confusing given its widely used religious definition? Third, I have no idea what you mean by "exponential progression of conscience," or why it is clear that we are on such a progression. Please provide a definition and some examples. Then I will be in a position to evaluate the above-quoted sentence, and whether it constitutes proof that the universe (however that is defined) can't always have existed. I'm not trying to nitpick here, it's just that this part of the introduction is very confusing to me.

All things approximate into an alleged eternity of the past. It is a simple calculus teaching of the law of limits. Anything derived from an eternity would itself effectively have existed for eternity. You are not reading the proof of God given, for all such terms are defined and dictionary definitions with links are amply supplied. The definition we are using for sin makes no mention of God. I must have told this to at least a thousand atheists who show how mindless they are they don't read the proof. There is no better word in the world than "sin" to describe what I am talking about. You can't think of a better word. Religion is important. Without religion life would not have developed. We need religion, so the word sin is good to help you move from the definition without mention of God to its definition which would be a sin against God; that should be no reason to think using this word is a problem just because of your anti-religious bias. Many examples in the proof of the exponential progression of conscience were given. You really need to read the Proof instead of limiting yourself. The reason things are confusing to you is because you start from the position of assuming God does not exist instead of simply heeding the evidence and letting it take you where it may.


What other option is there than the uncaused (uncreated) created?

It is unclear whether "created" in the sentence is an adjective (in which case it is a contradiction, positing an uncreated created entity), or as a verb with "the uncaused (uncreated)" as the subject, in which case you should have said "What other option is there than that the uncaused (uncreated) created"? One viable alternative option to "the uncaused (uncreated) creating the universe" is that the universe itself (existence, taken as a whole) is uncaused and uncreated, with no creative act necessary.

It's clear the word "created" is an action by the uncaused uncreated subject and because you know I believe in God. It wouldn't make much sense for a person who believes in God to be claiming God was created. I would have said instead the uncaused WAS created not "the uncaused created." You are lame claiming the word "that" is needed. That's funny. We know the universe can't be uncaused because heat death would be far greater than it is and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience. You don't need 100,000 years since the first God-conscious man, let alone a million or a billion in the backdrop of eternity to reach near sinlessness, a state we are soon fast approaching.


Atheism is utterly destroyed and morally bankrupt because it has no answer and never will.

I have provided an alternative option above: the universe (existence taken as a whole) is uncaused and uncreated, and no creation is necessary. Let's discuss that option before concluding that atheism (lack of a belief in a god or gods) is destroyed and morally (intellectually?) bankrupt.

Your option violates Step 1 & Step 2 of the 4 Step Proof for God. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, for that is called agnosticism. The word in the English language to say God does not exist is called "atheism." The reason why agnostics like to call themselves atheists when they are really agnostic is because they know what God says: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 14.1). Your guilt is showing. We have already discussed your options as failures.


You would have to be God (having omniscience) to know if God exists when you hold out having to know all things to be sure. You are saying you won't accept proof of God unless you are God. Wow!

I do not claim that I would have to be omniscient to know whether God exists. The assertion that I won't accept proof of God unless I am God is an absurd ad hominem, and I have no idea why you think that. I view knowledge as a mental grasping of the facts of reality that is reached through perception or a process of reason based on perception. Certainty can be obtained if the evidence for a belief is conclusive within the context of one's knowledge. Knowledge of new facts can strengthen or decrease one's certainty. One does not need to know everything or be infallible to have knowledge, including knowledge of whether God exists. At present (within the present context of my knowledge of the facts of reality), I do not see any good reason to believe in God. However, I could very well be mistaken may be evidence of which I am not aware or logical proof based on evidence that I have not properly considered.

This claim someone has to be God to know if God exists applies to those who suffer the delusion of violating Step 2 of the Proof. It's not an ad hominem, but it is the result of their claim they have to know all things to know if God exists, thus they are claiming they have to be God. But you are not far off the beaten path, because you also always look for another explanation rather than accepting the clear evidence before us that heat death would be far greater than it is in a flat universe (geometric nomenclature) and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does.

You are aware, thus without excuse, that if mankind had been around for 10 billion years he would not still be sinning to the extent he still does, and he certainly would have been around for that amount of time and longer if the universe had always been existing. The same goes for heat death or entropy. And scientifically since you can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data that most skeptical scholars concede this is also how you prove God exists in Jesus who raised from the dead and which is impossible naturally. In fact Jesus said this would be the best proof of all and He turned out to be right, because He created you and me, not probably but absolutely!


I would like to discuss these points one at a time before moving on to the next paragraph of the 4 Step Perfect Proof. Please address the specific points I have raised, as they are preventing me from being able to meaningfully evaluate and accept the proof. If any of my questions are addressed or clarified later in the proof, feel free to point that out so I can make a note of it and we can then discuss it further when we reach that point in the proof. Once we have discussed the questions I have raised in this post, we can move on to the second paragraph of the perfect proof, which I have not yet read (I want to let you see firsthand the reaction of at least one atheist reading the proof for the very first time, as it may help, if you ever decide to revise or rewrite it, to know what common misconceptions or reservations new readers might have). While I may rely on my own research and sources in this discussion, I will refrain for the time being from reading any other discussions or criticisms of your specific proof in order to have my own judgment on it uninfluenced by the opinion of others (all the better to keep an open mind).
It's better if you stop talking and read the Proof once through at least. You've read the Preview and that's all it seems. The Preview is just a Preview. It gives you the foundation upon where the Proof sits, but for those who are daft to be able to understand its basic elements, and too fleshly to be willing to read further which expounds on and deals with such matters in detail, then I can't help you. The issues you raise are already in the Proof itself, so you should read the Proof. All your questions are already answered. Think about that. Have the humility to realize that your questions are already answered in the Proof. Take a humble position and assume your answers are already addressed or that you will find the answer as you read along-that might make it easier for you to read to expect as you read through the Proof your answer is given, so previously misread should humble you.

Read the Proof. Stop being a lazy atheist. That's a bad habit to not read through and not to reserve judgment. Read the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm).

Rejoin the forums when you have done so. I'm taking this approach for you, because your stance is that of arrogance since you are unwilling to read through the Proof at least once first. It's not that much to read. It's the fraction of a size of an actually whole book. :p