4 Step Proof for God - True or False?

[whatisup]

Nothing can come from nothing - therefore something (God) must have created the universe and existence itself.

There is really no evidence to disprove or prove this. Anything that happened after the Big Bang are only superstition. The thing is that >ANYTHING< could have happened. Your argument is more that, since X can't have always existed - then it HAS to be like this. The only "true" answer we can say as of yet is "maybe". Think of it like this.

If a tree fell down in a forest but none saw it - then we may agree that something caused it to fall down. Maybe it was a very strong wind that fell it, maybe it was an earthquake, maybe the tree was very old and frail and just crushed itself with its own weight.

You are basically saying "since the tree was not seen by anyone - then X must have occurred due to Y and Z". But that does not PROVE your point. We don't know if nature have always existed, nor do we know if this "meta-existence" where this God is exists either. It just may be that everything exists just for no sake at all.

That is a very powerful sentence right there - "It just may be that everything exists just for no sake at all".



We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something from nothing. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.

Two words: Quantum Physics.

[spiritualman]

There is really no evidence to disprove or prove this. Anything that happened after the Big Bang are only superstition. The thing is that >ANYTHING< could have happened. Your argument is more that, since X can't have always existed - then it HAS to be like this. The only "true" answer we can say as of yet is "maybe". Think of it like this.
The evidence is we see trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A case in court would win this every time. And if you always hold out for the chance there could be some proof of something from nothing, requiring you to know all things, that's a contradiction because obviously you are not all knowing and never will be like the uncreated Creator would be.

Since you agree that anything extending before the big bang is just superstition then I agree with you infinite regress is impossible, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated Creator--the very nature of God. The reason why there can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects is because if there was, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Now that you know the uncreated Creator exists, find out where He reveals Himself, since a personal accessible God is better than an absentee landlord of deism. Only in Christianity does God prove Himself by the proof of the resurrection of Jesus that you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' eyewitness testimony in various group settings.

Z (infinite regress) can't happen because Y (you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do), therefore X (nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space).

This is a 100% logical factual, remaining unchallenged. Romans 1.20 says, therefore, you're without excuse, because nature, as seen here, proves God exists.


If a tree fell down in a forest but none saw it - then we may agree that something caused it to fall down. Maybe it was a very strong wind that fell it, maybe it was an earthquake, maybe the tree was very old and frail and just crushed itself with its own weight.

You are basically saying "since the tree was not seen by anyone - then X must have occurred due to Y and Z". But that does not PROVE your point. We don't know if nature have always existed, nor do we know if this "meta-existence" where this God is exists either. It just may be that everything exists just for no sake at all.

That is a very powerful sentence right there - "It just may be that everything exists just for no sake at all".

Two words: Quantum Physics.
No. I am not saying W ("since the tree was not seen by anyone") then X must have occurred due to Y if Z were true. X must have occurred due to Y if Z were true irregardless of W since U (overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something from nothing).

This is a perfect proof of the uncreated Creator which remains unchallenged.

Because of Y and U, we know Z is not true. W is irrelevant. We know Z is false. We know there can't be an infinite regress of nature (Z) therefore X is true.

Meta-existence in space is irrelevant since U proves cause and effect in any meta natural or supernatural existence that is not uncreated.

The uncreated Creator doesn't exist by definition in a place, for the uncreated Creator is outside of time and space which was proven above. It's just Him all alone (in a good way of course).

"Whether you think there is purpose or not is irrelevant to the proof, it still proves the uncreated Creator"--a very powerful sentence.

Two words: Quantum Physics.