Questions About the 4 Step Proof

[Silverhammer]

To be quite honest, I've kinda been a little skeptical about Christianity in general recently, and I really wish to find my way back to God. I stumbled upon your four step proof and it seems legitimate, but I just have a few questions.

1. You say that we are on an "exponential progression of conscience", meaning that mankind does not sin as much now as man did in the past. Do you have empirical data for this? What constitutes a sin? Are there various magnitudes of sin? In other words, how do you measure 'sin'? May I see these measurements to confirm their validity?

2. "Since the universe can't come from nothing that which does not exist and can't always have existed, the cause must be immaterial, outside of time and space. Again, this is whom we call God." I have met several atheists and agnostics that would agree with the first part of the first sentence, but disagree with everything else. What data do you have that points to the fact that God is immaterial? What data do you have that points to the fact that God is the cause of the universe as opposed to, say, something that has yet to be discovered? May I see this data as well?

3. "Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but about something else." Why can't your four step proof be applied to another god or gods? Why do your statements prove ONLY the existence of the God of the Bible?

4. "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Awesome quote! But what if there's another explanation that we haven't considered yet? What if this explanation is "hiding" (if you will) from our sight?

That's all I have for now. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to reading your response and (hopefully) becoming a part of this community.

-Silverhammer-

[InTruth]

1. You say that we are on an "exponential progression of conscience", meaning that mankind does not sin as much now as man did in the past. Do you have empirical data for this? What constitutes a sin? Are there various magnitudes of sin? In other words, how do you measure 'sin'? May I see these measurements to confirm their validity?
Empirical data would be child sacrifices per capita and murder rate per capita. Those are clearly down. A sin is acquiescence to temptation. For the purposes of the proof you only need to appreciate sin exists and not get into what the various sins are.


2. "Since the universe can't come from nothing that which does not exist and can't always have existed, the cause must be immaterial, outside of time and space. Again, this is whom we call God." I have met several atheists and agnostics that would agree with the first part of the first sentence, but disagree with everything else. What data do you have that points to the fact that God is immaterial? What data do you have that points to the fact that God is the cause of the universe as opposed to, say, something that has yet to be discovered? May I see this data as well?
Since nature can't always have existed, just as the proof shows, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Your other argument is for infinite regress, that is, a never ending stream of cause and effects, but that's impossible according to Step 1 because you would have happened already and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.


3. "Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but about something else." Why can't your four step proof be applied to another god or gods? Why do your statements prove ONLY the existence of the God of the Bible?
Other god or gods don't really exist and can't be applied anyway because they don't claim to be the sole uncreated creator. Imbedded in the 4 Step Proof is the nature of the God of the Bible and the reason only He is viable is because only He is personal entering His creation to personally be with us and pay for sins. There is no greater love.


4. "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Awesome quote! But what if there's another explanation that we haven't considered yet? What if this explanation is "hiding" (if you will) from our sight?
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence of is beyond a reasonable doubt of trillions and trillions of cause and effects, so though you could keep suggesting another explanation one day you're going against the odds. And ultimately what you are doing is claiming you have to be God-all knowing-to know for sure, but that is itself is self-contradictory because, obviously, you could never be all knowing. So consider this approach of yours in essence false humility. We have all the information we need to know God exists. The first God-conscious man knew it. How much more we know it today! I implore you to read Romans 1.20 that says without even ever hearing the name Jesus you are without excuse for rejecting God.