4 Step Proof for God of the Bible [Archive]

Churchwork

02-13-2006, 02:26 PM

FSTDT (For Satan The Demonic Thinker),

I will only respond to what you posted that needs to be responded to. The rest need not be responded to because it is out of context or inordinately vague and unspecific. For others that read this, in the case that I ban FSTDT, know that he responded by answering "No" to all 18 questions.

A quick search of Troys’ forum indicates that Troy has used the keyword "banned" in at least 63 other posts. So, my theory is this: its not that Troys’ argument is so good that no critic can answer it, but rather Troy simply bans all the critics from his forum.
This is a vague conclusion to draw, when in fact this many and more bannings were needed, usually giving the reason. Many forums do not courteously give the reason. Your theory is too vague. Learn to deal specifically.

Troy calls his argument the perfect proof for God. But, Christian theology holds that no human being is perfect, not even Troy himself; he cannot create perfection, only God can. So, from the very start, I am justified in presuming Troy’s proof is imperfect, because it comes from a fallible human being.
This is false reasoning because though Christians are being perfected by God, it does not mean we are imperfect in all things. One of those things that is perfected is the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible which flows from the perfect Word of God.

I do believe I have the upper edge in one way: both Troy and I are human beings, but there is a good chance that I am a more critical and cautious writer than Troy, and there is another probable chance that I have a greater number of books and resources at my disposal than Troy. I base my comments on a somewhat educated guess; whereas I have dozens of books on philosophy and theology sitting on my bookshelf and intend to cite many of them at length, I see no indication that Troy has cited any sources for his essay apart from the Bible. Its uncommon for a person to present a rigorous and lengthy proof of God without referencing to any sources, so I presume he has none.
The truth of this mistaken assumption is that quoting men is not the touchstone since all those men could be wrong. If a truth in itself is reasonably true, then it stands alone as true as it specifically is a proof unto itself. My curiousity will be as I read your response whether you actually deal with the specificity of the Proof instead of talking around it.

He appears to deny that observing the universe is unnecessary to demonstrate the existence of God; rather, he says all we need to prove God’s existence is the forcefulness of the rules of strict deductive and inductive logical inference. There are two things worth noting about this comment:
Yes. I do deny that observing the universe is unnecessary. You must observe the universe to know God created. Do you see the error in your double negative, for then you wrote, "rather..." This is why the Bible says, look at the mountains and the stars, and asks, did you do that? Looking at creation is apply correct logic.

Troy internally contradicts himself. Observe: [I]We don’t need to analyze the cosmos till the cows come home with grand theories... [At the very end of the essay:] Eventually the sun and all stars should die out but the universe will never collapse on itself for scientist today agree that dark energy is a greater force than dark matter and matter itself. Dark energy, scientifically proven, pushes outwardly expanding the universe at an exponential rate in spite of the pervasive force of gravity pressing in. It turns out that this great force of gravity ironically is weak, and also is (tentatively) the avenue through which we are raised "to the throne" (Rev. 7.9). Only God could create such a vast complexity.
There is no contradiction. This is true.

On the one hand, Troy believes a proof for God can be made by logical inference, without relying on scientific observations of the universe. On the other hand, Troy emphasizes a point that observations of the universe indicate a complexity that only the God-hypothesis can explain. Observing complexity is an empirical observation, existing quite apart from the exclusively logical means that Troy intended to use in his proof for God. This is not necessarily a problem for Troys’ proof, but just something I noticed.
Scientific observation is what God asks us to observe, which the 4 Step Proof does. So, there is not the "on the other hand."

Troy appears to emphasize the value of intuition. I’m afraid Troy has left this word undefined, so I will have to define it myself: an intuition is an unexamined personal conviction. Using that definition, intuition is almost entirely useless to any human being trying to make factual statements about the universe.
Intuition is not an unexamined personal conviction, but rather, it is a function which is observable in human beings wherein they know something to be true, without all the facts, yet the facts that have been acquired can adequately stimulate the intuition to abide in the truth non-overassumingly. It should be noted that intuition can also be misused to be overassuming. For example, when one misreads by saying "without relying on scientific obsersavation" when scientific observation was observed. The intuition was not right in the person who accused. In the intuition of this person resides the evil spirit as both Juliet and FSTDT call Jesus a liar.

Similarly, there is an ancient intuitive belief that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, but this intuitive belief is false. All objects fall at the same acceleration.
This is actually wrong. You can prove it yourself. Go to the top of a building and drop two objects of same size and shape but different weight. One will fall faster than another. Only in a perfect vacuum is what you say true.

For the simple reason that intuitions contradict, we cannot take it as a given that intuitional beliefs make factual statements about the universe. Certainly, some intuitions may correspond to facts, but they are not statements of fact in themselves.
This is why we do not rely solely on intuition, but God asks us, in the Bible, to observe the facts, but do not forsake intuition that is knowing.

More importantly, when one person has an intuitional belief that contradicts another persons intuitional belief, how are we supposed to know which intuitional belief is correct? If we just focus on the intuitions themselves without reference to anything else, there is no reason to prefer one intuition above any other. However, by appeal to the sciences, we have a means to confirm an intuitional belief. However, when we realize that science is the tool being used to make factual statements about the universe, and not intuitions themselves, we realize that intuitions never have anything to do with the final product of stating facts in the first place; intuitions are irrelevant to truths about the universe.
Intuition is vital. Why? Because even after a truth has been revealed, it is still rejected by those who do not rely on a clean intuition.

Inordinate analysis and mental gymnastics are total vanity to make the case that God created. The reason we study the sciences is not to find out if God exists but for the sake of furthering understanding of scientific phenomenon to glorify God.

This is an unwarranted presumption, and in fact it is blatantly false. Many people are fascinated by science without having any corresponding beliefs about how science glorifies God, I’m just such a person. Certainly, some people believe science glorifies the existence of God, but you appear to be speaking for the scientific community as a whole; if this is the case, you’re deliberately misrepresenting the scientific community. Science makes no statements about the existence of God, nor any statements about our obligations to glorify or worship God.
I am not speaking for the scientific community as a whole, since there are many scientists who are non-believers with flawed reasoning. Science proves God: for example, the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God. God in the Bible asks us to observe science to know God is I AM. Don't pride yourself on a lie that you are just such a person who appreciates science while rejecting God. In reality, you don't really appreciate science, since you make it an idol for yourself above God. If you truly appreciated science you would abide in it's purpose given by God to glorify God.

In our understanding of certain facts to fulfill His will for our lives and His greater purpose, He afford us this ability to know these certain things by grace for believers (and even common grace too all for the benefit of believers) to reach on towards the new city in the new earth. His aim is to be with believers in eternity.

Of course, even if we presumed the existence of God, it isn’t necessarily true that science glorifies him, that he desires people to worship him, or that he even cares about humanity at all. You have a very narrow conception of God, ascribing attributes to God without justifications. Your conception of God is particular to your religion; however, not every person who believes in God is a member of your religion. Deists for example believe God created the universe, but they also believe God has abandoned his creation; they would certainly deny that science glorifies this god or that this god is even worthy of worship. This is actually a significant point to make, because throughout your essay you offer no explanation for why your particular conception of God should be preferred over a deistic conception (or any other conception for that matter), but asserted it as a brute statement of fact without establishing it.
Your statement is brutish. We do not presume the existence of God, but in the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible, we prove Him, and that science glorifies Him, that He desires us to worship Him, and that He cares about humanity. Your view is very independent of God, disobedient like the fall. Look at the Proof that proves God instead of speaking in generalities. God is specific. You be specific. Everyone who believes in God is a member of my religion, for what is religion? It is the worship of God or something else. To worship God is to believe in God. You can't not worship God and still believe in Him. Because a believer believes, He worships. Since it is God of the Bible that created, all gods or idols and creation are below Him. God did not abandon creation, so deists do not believe in God, though they may claim they do; yet, they call Jesus a liar. Jesus did not lie to you. A loving God does not abandon His creation. Jesus did not abandon us but He broke into creation to die for us. This is true love. A true friend is one who gives their life for another. Deists do not accept science glorifies God, another proof they are not saved. They are in fact right that science does not glorify their god since their god is not God. They don't even have the conviction to worship their own god since they "deny...this god is even worthy of worship." What kind of god is that? It was self-created. The 4 Step Proof substantiates itself all the way, so sinning bearing false witness is just mindless self-declaration. For example, you said "your essay offers no explanation why" God of the Bible trumps the deism god. Though I have just explained it here, I have also said the reason in the Proof: "Bible fulfills this condition as revealed through Christ being sinless and giving His life as the only begotten Son of God for forgiveness of sins and giver of eternal life. Each dispensation, the leading conscience on the planet has always been what God of the Bible has revealed ever since Adam and Even in written records by Moses (this can be detailed further by comparisons and is not necessary to go into here; but, do state it as fact for your own examination). This leading explanation, conscience and mind of God reveals how the universe came to be, why, and what the purpose is for us. None can compare to these answers." And, "I know the atheist/agnostic question is if God is uncreated why can't something else, anything else, be uncreated? But, if you ask this, then you have to be intellectually honest with yourself, and do a comparison to this "anything else" with Jesus Christ. There is no comparison. Christ wins hands down every time given His nature and conduct."

By presuming that God, if he exists, is the God of your particular religion and so many other attributes without supporting argument is a simple case of begging the question. However, because this particular conception of God is central to your essay, and you beg the question to such extremes, you undermine the whole of your essay significantly. Your essay is not intended as a Four-step Proof for God, but more specifically as a Four-step Proof for the Christian God; but seeing as you presume the truth of Christianity without rigorously proving it, then you’ve not offered a Four-step Proof for the Christian God in the least. All of your appeals to Biblical stories, verses, and so on are constructed on a foundation of question begging, but they do not stand up on their own; the moment someone like me takes a look at your Four-Step Proof for the Christian God and sees you’ve presumed the Christian God from the very start, your proof falls apart at step 0. Your comments are only persuasive to people who already believe in your conception of God, but to no one else.

After the Proof was given, which it has, do not respond with begging the question, for you are begging the question by being vague, misreading. The Proof is about God of the Bible, proving Him. It is quite extreme to self-declare something without reason. In the Proof, we never say Christ is God first, but we find out that He is from the Proof. Step 3 says "Instead of making the mistake of trying to disprove something else that is not God, why not stay on topic BY NOT misreading Step 3 when you try to disprove some god or idolatry you speak of by his or its name which is not God. Simply do not bring this misreading into your attempt to refute this Proof since then you would be talking about oranges, while the proof is talking about apples" and the "4 Step Proof agrees with the Word as the Proof does not specifically utilize the Word directly, so as not to be blamed for assuming God existed first." Yet you blame anyway. This is wrong. Do you see how you misread Step 3 and why Step 3 is needed? It is needed because the Proof is proving God without assuming God first, and asks that you not try to disprove some god, but attempt your disproof against God of the Bible shown to be God in the Proof.

Analyzing the universe falsely and overassuming are just the lame excuses for refusing God’s salvation because of preferring sin, selfishness and independency from God by emulating Satan. Do not be afraid to let go of your flesh when reading this.

But now the persuasive power of your Four-Step proof has taken a nose dive, seeing as how you’ve taken the liberty to speak on behalf of non-believers. You can’t seriously believe that non-believers are just rebels who are trying to emulate Satan. Its not only a factually incorrect assessment of non-believers reasons for denying the existence of God, its vindictive and rude.
Since God has revealed what will happen to non-believers, do not think it is I who speak on their behalf, for it is God who reveals their destination. In the deepest inner recesses of their being, they reject God for the exact same reason Satan does. This is their vindictiveness to God, which is rude. Independency from God is the cause of the fall. They are rebels, yes as was I before I was saved; as you are unsaved now, bound for hell. In layman's terms, you are a bad person who exalts himself above God.

Many in Christendom have said there is no Proof for God. In Christ, faith is not blind. There is more than one Proof for God, but I find what you are about to read is the very best one, which has never been challenged at all since the dawn of man.

Notes: Obviously, this first comment fits the form of a simple genetic fallacy; there is no such argument that says "X has property Y, therefore any arguments M which originate from X also have property Y"; in other words, there is no such argument that Troy being a fallible human makes his arguments fallible as well. However, with respect to Christian apologetics, this particular instance of the Genetic Fallacy is generally accepted as logically valid, and I’d expect if Troy is anything like a typical Christian apologist, he’d accept it without further argument.
Since Christians do not accept genetic fallacies, saying they do does not make them do. Let go of your expectations, since they are wrong. I am a Christian, for I need not qualify myself. Many who say they are apologists in fact are not even Christians, though they may say they are, but God says there are many who try to look like the wheat, but are tares unsaved (Matthew 13) operating in the sphere of the kingdom of heaven. The reason why X (you are unsaved) is because of property Y (calling Jesus a liar and rejecting the 4 Step Proof for God); ergo, M (your) arguments are not always wrong from you, but this one is, since the Proof proves Jesus.

Troy may have one avenue for disagreement, where he could say that the books of the Bible were authored by humans, but their divine inspiration makes them infallible. Of course, this would only complicate his argument for two reasons: The claim that the Bible is infallible and divinely inspired is spurious at best. He’d be suggesting that he was being divinely guided as he typed his proof, which is another spurious claim.
Self-declarations of spurious without reason is not a reason. The Proof is given by the Holy Spirit since it does not come from me. As the Holy Spirit spoke in the Word, so revelation flows from the word of God, which includes this Proof. It is so powerful in fact that it makes no mention of God first, but proves God. To prove this, see the 4 Step Proof.

Step 1, in a nutshell, is simply Troys’ way of saying "the universe has been around for a finite amount of time".
It is not merey said, but proven in Step 1.

Step 1 - Why is eternally evolving in the past of cause and effect (do not confuse this with the limitedness of evolution, the physical science, since the amoeba) NOT TRUE, in the physical realm (material nature), biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically; that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity.

The above paragraph is not phrased very well at all, so here is my translation: Troy is stating that humans evolve from a sinful state to a sinless state; he says if humans have been around for an infinite amount of time, we would be perfect; but because we are still sinful, we have only been around for a finite amount of time.

It is phrased well, so much so, by observing what was said with what you said, exposes what you said as misreading what was said. Nothing is said about being created in a sinful state, only that if a state of sin was entered into, it would not take an eternity to come out of it. If you read it this way, you would be non-overassuming. Later we discover through the Proof, man was created perfect without sin since Jesus was the second man or last Adam, and the Proof proves Jesus is God. Also, know why the first Step is worded this way, in order to address scores of lame reasonings people put forth, which FSTDT's statement does not equip itself with. I do this out of courtesy more than anything else.

Of course, I agree the universe is only a finite number of years old, but Troys’ methodology is utterly bizarre: in order for his argument to work, he must presume that humans have existed since the beginning of time. Or, at the very least, he must assume that living things have been evolving for eternity. But there is no reason to make that presumption.
Even if we allow that the universe’s existence extends infinitely into the past, it says nothing about whether humans should be sinless.

It is bizarre to misread so easily. The Proof does not require to assume humans existed since the beginning of time, for as the Proof states, "biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically." Do you see why these words were given, to stop dead in its tracks the above argument by FSTDT? It is quite important to note in Step 1 the law of "cause and effect." The past of an eternal cause and effect, does not itself say anything about sin, so that is why we must observe the NOW, to see that we do sin, and exponentially our progression will not take another 6000 years to reach perfection. This is all stated already integral to Step 1.

There are a number of ways we can account for sinful people in an infinite universe: For instance, we could imagine that planets have come into existence at all different points of time across the timeline of the universe, and that each of those civilizations has existed for only a finite amount of time in the infinitely existing universe; that would certainly explain the existing sin in the infinite universe. In this way, an infinitely existing universe is consistent with civilizations that have only existed for a finite amount of time.
FSTDT already said he does not believe the universe is infinite from the past. Be "not doubletongues" (1 Tim. 3.8). Coming into existence does not explain sin. Sin is not defined by existence, but by the act of sinning. Step 1 holds true, that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, we would have an eternity to be perfected. Any made in God's image for the sake of an eternity of the past, would have had an eternity to be perfected "according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity."

We could also imagine a universe which has recurring Bangs and Crunches, which cycle for eternity. So that, the reason why sin still exists is because no civilization has ever had a chance to evolve for an infinite period of time; each Bang and Crunch causes everything in the universe to start all over again.
Step 1 again, covers this proposal (dozens and dozens of other previously made this attempt already), since all bangs and crunches have a cause and an effect. The reason why FSTDT is going to be deleted and his IP banned is because, he really does not offer anything new. It is better that he is given one response to see how he misreads and overassumes, and leave it at that. Moreover, scientists today do not believe there will be a crunch because dark energy is more powerful pushing out that dark matter and matter gravitate inward. Since the big bang the universe has been expanding at an exponential rate. Even if there was a crunch, man's existence would expand beyond any crunch restrictions for man would have reached a state of sinlesness (sinlessness is not bound by such restrictions). God can't annihilate the soul made in His image for this would be annihilating Himself which is unrighteous and impossible. God's image can never be destroyed - God being uncreated - and, that which He creates will be eternally existing, whether in hell or heaven.

Finally, we can say that the presumption that humans evolve into a "sinless" state is unfounded. Obviously, if Troy believes in things such as original sin, then he cannot believe by definition that humans could evolve into a sinless state; he can say that we may come closer and closer to a sinless state, but never achieve it no matter if they’ve existed for eternity or not.
As calculus goes, reaching the approximation of the state of sinlessness may be taken as sinlessness. It is akin to saying there is God, but we will never become God, though we will come as close to as God desires us to be. Also, not all humans, only those humans who are saved will reach this point. The rest of the dead will be separated from God for eternity, though not annihilated. Due to original sin approximately 6000 years ago, the progression that we have seen will not take another 6000 years to reach sinlessness. Original sin, if it is true (it is), requires creation since before sinning there is a perfectly sinless being. Nothing happens all by itself sinlessly (Step 2) and God creates perfectly (Gen. 1.1). Thus, God created.

All three scenarios painted above are a plausible counter-argument to Troys’ claim. Although, point 3 is probably the most powerful one that Troy will accept; if he accepts point 3, then obviously he must reject his premises for step 1 of his proof for God.
All three of these arguments as has been shown have been destroyed; therefore, we may discard them from further consideration.

However, Troys’ argument is not actually "debunked", he simply had a bad reason for explaining why the universe is a finite age. A better explanation is by simple appeal to what scientists called the "Heat Death": The ’heat-death’ of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind. The universe as a whole is a closed system, so energy is always being converted into useless heat, and eventually all energy will become useless heat. The fact Heat Death hasn’t happened yet is a good reason to indicate why the universe is not eternal.
The reason why the universe has a beginning and will subside is because this is the nature of nature in God's creation. But this is no reason to suspect the end of all things, for in it being created we see intelligent design, and that intelligence surely would not want all things to end mindlessly without purpose or reason. This is a better explanation than any other. Nothing compares. The reason presented by FSTDT is not adequete because if it is expanding and contracting it is still existing always anyway without anything saying if it started at some point. We are thus left with Step 1 still remaining as strong as it was originally when it was first presented. And so we conclude that since we still sin, we have not had an eternity of the past of cause and effect to be perfected. Ergo, God created. God did it. Praise the Lord!

We are referring to only man, not animals, and only those men and woman who are saved. One observes an exponential curve in our development, not just technologically, but also in our conscience, historically and scientifically undeniable. For example, it is no longer common practice, except in Islam, to sacrifice children on altars to their god or gods. In a very simple way we can say it this way: we will not keep killing each other for another million years.

There is, however, one way that no humans will be killing each other in 1 million years: if humans no longer exist, as if by killing ourselves off. It is not necessarily true that humans will evolve into a sinless state.
There is no reason to think man will kill himself off, though Satan tries, and men under Satan propose such a thing to try.

If anything, we will evolve into a state where we neglect the teachings of the Bible more and more; in fact, this very phenomena is prevalent in politics. Politicians have noticed that as time passes, we become more liberal:

- Where at first women could not work outside the home, now they can be CEOs.
- Where women could not show an inch of skin, women can wear very revealing clothes in public.
- Where pornography was a taboo, its mainstream.
- Where homosexuality was a criminal offense, it is becoming a major civil rights issue.
- Where animals were regularly killed and eaten, we may come to recognize their rights as autonomous feeling beings in the future.
The Bible teaches equality for women, so we see this being fulfilled from God's very Word. Politics will be one way this can be effected positively through God's common grace. Can you say amen to this? Awomen too! Pornography is opposite; this is a bad thing. Except, it does not occur in God's children as much or at all. Homosexuality is a sin, so like Sodom and Gomorrah before the return of Christ in the Great Tribulation we should expect this to happen more and more. Then, Christ reigns with an "iron rod" in Person with His overcomers. Do you see the need for Christ's return as Satan uses all these things before he is cast into the pit for "1000 years" (Rev. 20.3) so "that he should deceive the nations no more." Killing off species is also the sin of the world which is occuring in greater amounts today; but, in some places some amazing things are happening by the grace of God. In some countries, for example, in Africa the population of elephants is increasing substantially because of the ownership rights to allow hunting, but charging a fee for it. This legitimizes the illegality of killing elephants to punish those who do not pay for a license to hunt. This idea was never even considered before. This is a positive progression. Consequently, elephant populations are rising dramatically. Talk about a mystery of God's creation!

We may be an evolving civilization, but there is no indication that we will evolve into a sinless civilization. It may be the opposite: we may evolve into a civilization that makes rules without regard to what God has commanded sinful or not.
By taking the progression we have witnessed so far, we can discern scientifically and spiritually that it will not take another 6000 years to reach sinless perfection. Ergo, your presumption is debunked. Many more scientific studies will show this to be true in addition to the example I gave regarding sacrificing children to gods like they do in Islam.

Not only is Troys’ prediction flatly contradicted by the very teachings of the Bible itself (i.e. the story of Noah begins by noting how withing 10 generations, man had become so corrupted that they needed to be destroyed), but its unscriptural. There are no verses in the Bible that indicate humans will evolve into a sinless state; this is Troys’ unfounded presumption. Certainly, if God exists, he would not appreciate Troy inventing his own rules for the sinful nature of humans that do not appear in the Bible. His prediction is based on a heretical interpretation of scripture.
The lives in Noah's day over 10 generations is a small sample which reflects the consequence of sin. But look what happens, they find new ground, new beginnings. And from this, a much cleaner state of living arises, so much so that God promises He will never do that to mankind again. This is part of the exponential positive progression. This flooding was done before Noah's day on a greater scale way back in Gen. 1.2 when God made the earth desolate because of the sin of the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages. This was when Lucifer fell and brought 1/3 of the angels down with him, corrupting the beings at the time, which turned into the demons. God disembodied their spirits into the deep. While that was a global flood, the flood in Noah's day was a local flood. In the measure of the flood itself we see an exponential progression in the improvement of man's conscience. Wow! I like being challenged, as I had not realized this example before. Many other ideas are coming into view as well such as the age of man now is much less than it was previously from sin, yet now in the past century it is on the rise and it is not uncommon for someone to live 100 years of age. The Bible says man will be expected to live no less than 100 years in the coming millennial kingdom, but if a man does not make it to 100 it is directly due to his sinnning in the millennium. This is the exponential progression of man's conscience causing him to live longer. In the NT, sinlessness is to be attained. Sin is conducted by the power of death. The law of sin leads to the law of death. The law of sin is compelled to do things against God, while the law of death makes one unable to do things for God.

"And death and hades [not hell] were cast into the lake of fire [hell]. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire [hell] " (Rev. 20.13). Sin leads to death, and if there is no more death, it is because there was no more sin. "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (21.4). It is heretical to try intepret the Scriptures without the Holy Spirit: "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2.13).

Troy obviously does not believe the words he is saying in the first place, given his position that Christ’s martydom was required to atone for the sins of man. If Troy believes that we will evolve into sinless beings, then he would be conceding that those humans are sinless like Christ himself (a heresy in Christianity). Moreso, he would be conceding that humans can evolve away the stain of original sin (another heresy), and an impossibility which undermines his proof’s first step altogether.
I believe the words I am saying in the first place for these are words given by the Holy Spirit (they agree) that I share with you because I love you as my Father has loved me. Christ's death was a not a martyrdom. Christ's death was an atonement. If I die for Christ, it is martyrdom. It is a heresy to say God's children will not be sinless as Christ is sinless, for Jesus is the firstfruits of many who will be like Him in sinlessness, though not God since only God is God. God and the Lamb will be at the center of the new city in the new earth, while the resurrected-saved will be pillars of the new city and the new earth. You sound jealous FSTDT. Make note I did not say you will evolve into a sinless being, since you will be separated from God for all eternity in hell. Only God's children will be sinless. This is too distasteful for you, so what can God do but eternally separate you forever from His sons and daughters! This is Christianity. This is true. This is not a heresy. Your view is a heresy. Evolve means causes and effects for the purpose of the Proof. We do not overcome our sin nature by mere causes and effects, but by the grace of God in being perfected. Day by day the Holy Spirit worketh in the believer to bear his crosses daily and put to death a little more through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on that eternal cross. Man can not obsolve his own sins. It is only by the mercy and forgiveness of your Lord and Savior does God bring us into His fold. This is in keeping with the first Step of the 4 Step Proof, consistently showing that by observation of nature, we may see the exponential progression of man's conscience and the glory of creation to know that God did it! Thank the Lord for His common grace as well as His grace specific to His children for whom He wants to walk with for eternity out of the glory of making us in His image. He chose us because in being made in His image, we choose Him. Though you are made in God's image, God has not chosen you because you do not choose Him. How truly sad for you.

If Troy intends to prove the finite existence of human beings by their continuing sinful nature, he has failed to do so. Based on the premises that Troy has offered for his proof, Step 1 falls apart under the weight of his own theology. If he does not accept this refutation, then he is a heretic.
I was not trying to prove the finite existence of human beings, for as I have said before, annihilation of human beings is not possible. However, we were created in God's image. You can say we were not eternally evolving from the past, but we will eternally evolve into the future. Step 1 remains solid as it always has. If it were not the case it could have been shown otherwise. Heretics accusing falsely is what non-believers do because they are hostile to God and His children. This is so true that in the coming Tribulation they will try to exterminate us. But praise God for the promise of resurrection at the last day (1 Thess. 4.15-17).

This is the second in a series of replies to Troys’ Four Step Proof For God. Troys’ second step is basically a long way of saying "The universe needs a cause, that cause is God". But lets look at it closer: If, in response, an unsaved evolutionist, cosmologist, atheist or agnostic (thinly veiled atheism since a non-choice is still a rejection of God because it is not an acceptance) comes to you and says the big bang (or other natural means) is the beginning, again, that is false also since material (nature) doesn’t happen all by itself. There is always a cause to the effects in nature. Nothing in nature happens all by itself.
Take a deeper look. The 2nd Step more specifically says since nothing in nature happens all by itself, thus, the "universe needs a cause." God did it! Even in explaining this Proof we show the cause and effects of explaining the truth.

Just that simple, eh? I’m afraid not. You’re again begging the question, presuming without argument that the Big Bang itself is an effect from a prior cause. The confusion is being caused by an intuitive belief about the nature of time and the universe: that the universe exists at some point in time. However, as is frequently the case, our intuitive beliefs rarely accurately describe anything about the universe.
Yes. Just that simple. Don't be afraid. You're begging the question by misreading, thus producing from self false conclusions by your corrupted intuition indwelt by the evil spirit. The 2nd Step does not presume the big bang is an effect from a prior cause, but it is the case because nothing in nature happens all by itself. This is the point of Step 2. This is not founded on intuition without substance, but intuition corroborating what is factually observed in nature, that nothing happens all by itself. The part of intuition that is non-overassuming shows us nothing in nature happens all by itself. Your intuition deceives you. There is no puff the magic dragons it happened all by itself.

The universe does not exist at some point in time, but rather time itself exists within the universe. Its a statement that sounds very unintuitive, but its mathematically coherent. Just like there is no space outside of the universe, there is no time outside of the universe. The problem is that you’ve not shown that the universe is an effect of any prior cause, even in principle; no prior causes can exist outside of time, so your comment that the universe is an effect of a prior cause is logically incoherent.
The universe did exist at some point in time as well as time itself existed too as part of or even prior to the universe. In either case the laws of cause and effect are observed so that nothing in nature happens by itself, not even time. Each momemt in time has a time before it that caused the time following. This is mathematically coherent. In principle, nothing in nature happens all by itself, ergo, God did it! Time itself was caused, and causes can exist outside time, for in order for time to exist in needed to be caused. Ergo, God did it! Thus, it is illogical to say that the universe is not an effect, for no effect is without a cause: since the universe is obviously here (an effect), it had to have been caused. This is what we mean in Step 1: the causes and effects of evolving "in its more encompassing meaning." God is the causeless cause. See this in Christ.

I have to point out again that our intuitive expectations do not adequately define physics, and that the statement "everything effect in physics has a cause" is an intuitive statement. It may not be strictly true that physics is entirely deterministic at the very tiny level, but rather probabilistic. In fact, there are some physical processes that we know today that are acasual: For more than a decade, physicists attempted to understand radioactivity on a deterministic basis and their lack of success was not taken to imply that the phenomenon defied the law of causality. Only with the emergence of quantum mechanics was it recognised that radioactivity is a truly acausal and indeterministic ph[e]nomenon.
Perhaps its unintuitive to say that radioactivity is acausal, but it is mathematically coherent nonetheless. The occurrence of radioactivity demonstrates the existence of at least one effect in nature that does not have a cause, so your insistence that "always a cause to the effects in nature" is false.
All probabilities have a cause. This is not to say God predetermines them but He foreknows them. It is entirely illogical considering trillions of things with causes (not one without) then to claim an effect is without a cause. I can think of no greater overassuming besides that of calling Jesus a liar. There is no such thing as acausals. If it were true it could be shown. This is merely fantasy. It is like opening up a novel at chapter 2. There are no physical processes that are acausal. This shows you how bizarre and absurd the claims of those hostile to Christ will get. They will stoop this low without a shred of proof. This is blind faith towards Satan. The very fact that it is a process means it was proceded by something to cause the procession. Quantum mechanics does not show radioactivity to be without a cause. Self-declaring it selfishly does not make it so. Just because you can not understand such complicated things, does not mean it is without a cause. We recently have discovered quarks and strings; these being causes which before we never could have fathomed. Mathematically, it is not coherent to say radioactivity is without a cause. The math does not agree with the Satan worshipper. It just goes to show that claiming radio activity happens all by itself, shows the weakness of your argument. To explain this in a simple way, when a nuclear bomb is exploded, radio activity is emitted. There was no radio activity, then there was, because of splitting an atom. You even admit it is indeterminate now, which does not mean we will not always know causes regarding radioactivity. Don't you feel arrogant by saying just because you admit you don't know the cause therefore it must not have a cause? It is like you are trying to be God when you do that. This is a conversation with a dullard, requiring banning. These points by the unsaved have all been made before. Nothing new is introduced.

Step 2 should be rejected because the claim that the universe is an effect of some prior cause (that is, something happening in time before time existed in the first place) is logically incoherent, and your original claim that everything in nature has a cause is false. You’ve not shown that the universe has a cause, and certainly not that the cause has to be God.
If something in nature was without a cause or if time was causeless it for you to believe it, you could have some basis to believe it, but you have none. You have not even come close to doing so. The weight of the evidence is against you. Thus, it is illogical to reject Step 2 on this basis. We have shown that not only does the universe need a cause because nothing happens all by itself, but also that the cause must be the causeless cause God because only Jesus was sinless. No man is sinless except Jesus who was both God and man. Simple truth is not unreasonable, but it is unloved.

Material (or the smallest of particles) only knows how to react to the elements and its environment (or other small particles, waves, strings, quarks, even smaller). It does not make a choice. But God does choose, and He chose for a reason.

I have two things to point out: 1) Talk about begging the question! According to Charles Taliaferro: If successful, the [first cause] argument would provide a reason for thinking there is one such being of extraordinary power responsible for the existence of the cosmos. At best, it may not justify a full picture of the God of religion (a First Cause would be powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent), but it would none the less challenge naturalistic alternatives and bring one closer to theism.Troys’ argument is identical to various First Cause arguments that have been argued for centuries. However, Troys’ conception of God is a religious God, and First Cause arguments cannot prove the existence of any particular kind of religious God.
You should not beg the question. First cause, as we have seen, is necessary (see Step 2), which leads to the necessity of God being uncreated who created as well as He is omnipotent in the Godhead (Father, Son, Spirit). God must be of religion, and we all need religion, for religion is the worship of something. We need to worship, which is not for God, but a gift God gives us to give us purpose to be with Him, otherwise all would be dead works and there would be no reason to live without vanity. We do not argue first cause, but we know it, in each century, and tell it to you to help lead you to Christ. Only someone utterly arrogant would denounce the human history of worship (religion), worshipping being the very meaning of religion. There is a need. Who can deny it?

And as we see Christ sinless and perfect sacrifice for atonement, we know the creator is Christ. He said He was the creator. He did not lie, for He is sinless. He did no wrong. To say otherwise is a contradiction.

The movement from "First God" to "God of the Bible" is an unjustified leap of logic. But there is another non-sequitor evident in the essay: At the very beginning of Troys’ essay, he writes "Inordinate analysis and mental gymnastics are total vanity to make the case that God created". Troys’ move from "there must be a first cause" to "that first cause created the universe for a reason" is definitely mental gymnastics (I presume by "reason", he means God’s intent to create the universe). It does not follow that a first cause creates the universe for a reason, that is a non-sequitor.
We, as Christians, do not move from First God to God of the Bible since there is no First God, because God is uncreated. He is causeless, so He is not first. He existed in the eternity of the past before what was first. From the Uncreated eternally existing we discover Jesus to be God because of what Jesus said and did and was prophesied of Him which was fulfilled and finished on the cross. To suggest otherwise in the light of Christ is a non sequitor without the dash. It is not mental gymnastics to accept that there is a first cause since all we need to do is look up at the mountains and the stars and ask, did we do that? No. God did it! Praise God! If God explains it this simply in the Word of God, is it really that difficult to understand? Even a babe in Christ gets it. Even a small child can understand. Therefore, to claim this is a non-sequitor given this evidence, is itself a non-sequitor due to inordinate stirring in your head, forsaking your spirit, in mental gymnastics.

You can see why I have pretty much stopped taking entries from peoples' submissions because they don't introduce anything new. They just repeat same old material which has been shown to be false over and over ad infinitum untoward hell.

There are many ways that the universe could be created without any reason: A deistic God could have created the universe, then abandoned his creation immediately. There is no contradiction in saying that his kind of God created the universe, but he did not create the universe to serve any purpose or reason. The universe could have been created by the death of God (perhaps his death released the energy that became the Big Bang). This conception of God is consistent with saying that God created the universe, but without any reason.
As stated before to your cohort, the universe was not abandoned in its creation for such is vanity, and Christ is not vain. Even if it was created in vain, the creator of allowing this fallen state would still be in control as is Christ who created the creator. This is where Step 4 (dealing with the supernatural) comes in by saying if there was an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, you would have been sinless by now, having had an eternity to be perfected. Ergo, you know God created! Lovingly! Your rejection of God's love is due to the fact that in your spirit indwells the evil spirit from the fall in which you were born into, but God has not abandoned you. It only feels that way because you have not been born-again to know God's love intimately. He has provided redemption through His only begottone Son. Your rejection of His Son is your choice.

We clearly see deism is a lie. God being uncreated can not die. Christ was resurrected. To understand God's plan before the foundations of the world to bring Jesus into the world to atone for the sins of the world, understand the way of the Lord and the council of the Godhead (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm).

The problem with Troys' argument is his presumption that his particular conception of God is the only conception of God, which of course is false provided by the many theists who are not members of his own religion. His claim that a God must have created the universe is false, provided by the many other conceptions of God who could have created the universe without any reason.
By not being a member of my own religion is not the basis to be proven right. That is nonsensical. We have proven God of the Bible through each of the 4 Steps which is without presumption. Thus, to disagree with Christians, is a presumption since Jesus did not lie and we know the Creator is uncreated. All other conceptions of what people think is God are proven to be false. For example, we have totally destroyed the deism argument by the loving act of Christ to die on the cross for our sins not in vain. By comparison, Christ is victorious. You can show this comparison with 40,000+ adherents of the world.

2) Let’s ignore the fact that there are ways a God can create the universe without a reason. Let’s focus on Troys' statement itself that "He chose [to create the universe] for a reason". On making this statement, we can ask "what reason caused God to create the universe", and "what reason caused the reason which caused God to create the universe", and so on back to infinity. Troy has essentially condemned himself to the infinite regress that he was trying to avoid in the first place. His Step 2 for God breaks down absolutely.
There are not ways God can create the universe without a reason, so it is of no value to suggest such. If there was, it could have been shown. There is no break down of God creating for His own reason, which He discloses in the Word. He created out of His glory to walk with those He created in His image who chose His life by grace. Juliet condemns hereself for rejecting not only God's love, but God Himself who created her.

If God’s reason is uncaused, then it is an causeless cause...but Troy defined God as "God who is uncreated, that is, the One Whom is, in fact, Causeless", does this mean that God himself and God’s uncaused reasons are both God? Is Troy a polytheist, and does he worship uncaused reasons? He’d look really silly if he did! This fact is inconsistent with Troys’ own theology, so step 2 falls apart.
You misread. God's reason is not uncaused. For He causes the reason. God's reason is His reason. God is God. God causes His reason. When God chooses for a reason, this does not intruduce gods: polytheism. False reasoning would. The arguments are getting dumb and dumber. The way Satan works is to first misread something, then draw false conclusions by that misreading to bear false witness as the false accuser. This is his confusion instilled in others. This is what Juliet did. Since I never said God's reason is uncaused, though God is uncaused, we can simply hand back to Juliet her misinterpretation, which is actually her attempts at being cunning. Do you see how well the Holy Spirit can expose the mistakes of others with a little patience (this is our responisibility to be patient)?

The misapplied use in accusing of a fallacy of composition leads us, ironically, to the conclusion that God created since there is no first cause that is causeless for the creation of the universe except that which is outside the composition, rendering God the uncreated causelessness

I’ve already shown that if God exists, there is at least one other uncreated causelessness (that is, whatever cause God to create the universe). However, Troy is missing the point about why atheists say that God could have been caused by an infinite regress of gods himself, probably because he is unfamiliar with the actual cosmological argument that he is using.
Since, as was shown, there can be nothing that caused God to create except God Himself, we can discard any self-declarations about multiple causelessnesses. Step 4 immediately destroys the "infinite regress" of gods since if there was an eternity of the past of gods createing gods, then we would have had an eternity to be perfected, but we still sin. Ergo, God did it. It is because I am aware of the cosmological argument, that Step 4 rounds out the 4 Step Proof.

I’ll write out a simplistic version of the cosmological argument for him: 1. Everything that exists has a cause. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. 5. So there must be an uncaused cause. 6. That uncaused cause is God.
Amen.

However, when Troy says God exists, and that he is uncaused, he immediately invalidates the first premise of his own cosmological argument. If he must rewrite the first premise as "everything which exists has a cause except God", then he is using ad hoc reasoning. And if he must rewrite the first premise "everything which has a beginning has a cause", then he traps himself into a corner in which he must try to argue that prior causes can exist before time exist.

The 4 Step Proof is deeper than the cosmological argument because the Proof deals with sin and conscience whereas the cosmological argument does not. Morever, no doubt you can see the 4 Step Proof goes into greater detail. The 4 Step Proof leads us to know that God exists and that He is causeless. Nothing about the 4 Step Proof is ad hoc, that is, improvised. It is very specific and substantial. The first step in the cosmological argument is similar to the 4 Step Proof for God ONLY IF that which exists is all that we see in nature, including time itself. The reason Step 1 is first in the Proof is because we need to establish that there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. We need to establish this first to show why we still sin: since the universe has not been going on forever, the only other possibility is God did it. And we do not sin forever, but it is for a short while. So, after realizing this in Step 1, we find in Step 2 that nothing happens all by itself, which agrees with Step 1; thus, God did it. Everything that has a beginning does have a cause except that which is causeless, being God Himself (the subject of the Proof as stated in Step 3). These causes and effects include all things, the universe and even time itself. Before even time itself, the reason time exists, is because of the causeless Creator God of the Bible who chose to create it.

Theists’ insistence that God is uncaused instantly invalidates the claim that "everything which exists needs a cause", so either the premise "everything which exists needs a cause" is false (the cosmological argument breaks down) or God’s existence implies he too is caused. If its not true that everything which exists needs a cause, then the arguments that the universe needs a cause is false. Step 2 falls apart consequently.
You are arguing against the cosmological argument, not the 4 Step Proof. For this you are banned. You should have started another thread. Everything in nature needs a cause, for everything in nature is created. Since God is not created He need not be caused. Step 2 does not say everything that exists needs a cause, but that everything in the universe has a cause. God exists. But, God has no cause since the Proof is talking about God of the Bible who is causeless. You can see why Step 3 is valuable because you are not arguing against God of the Bible, but some god. What is true of the god you are arguing against does not hold true for the God of the Bible. You are trying to relate the first step in the cosmological argument with Step 2 in the 4 Step Proof for God, but they are not the same.

The Bible says if you seek God with all your heart, then you will surely find Him. It’s the person who wants to know God that God reveals Himself to.

Troy is begging the question again. There is no indication that the Bible tells us anything about the nature or existence of God, Troy assumes this as a fact without argument. If someone were to counter this claim with "God’s existence is not revealed through the Bible, but through H P Lovecraft" without argument, then there would be no reasons for preferring Troys’ unestablished claim that God is revealed through the Bible over the equally unestablished claim that God is revealed through H P Lovecraft. Without any reasons for preferring either claim over the other (and infinite number of holy texts for that matter), how can we say that either claim has any explanatory power at all? If the claim has no explanatory power, how can it be used to explain the origins of the universe? Quite simply, it can’t.
I do not argue. I have no need to argue when I tell you the truth. God throughout the Word shows us His nature, that is, His Holiness, that He is loving, kind, merciful, righteous (His way of doing things), among many many other things. For example, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph. 1.4). And Jesus said, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" (Rev. 1.11). There are many other verses, but you can see the point, Jesus is claiming He is God. And since Jesus never sinned, we have no reason to believe He lied. Thus, God created and Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Godhead. No proofs exist of H P Lovercraft being uncreated, we can disregard it. By comparison we see Jesus without sin, documented extensively in over 100 parchments both from secular and non-secular of the first century. We see men who were with Jesus died proclaiming witnessing His resurrection and receiving forgiveness from God. There is no greater proof. There is a lawyer in the guiness book of records who won over 245 cases in a row, and He said the proof for the Gospel of Christ is the best proof he has ever seen. I agree. A "craft" by the way is an object without intelligence. We know this, so this argument of an object being the uncreated creator is illogical. The Word of God is uncreated for the Word is Jesus Christ (John 1.1). This is the explanatory power you seek. Now will you heed it? If you do not you are going to hell.

I believe the above paragraph adequately shows that Troys’ unestablished premises have no explanatory power for anything, which by implication means they cannot explain the origins of the universe. As Troys’ intended his essay to be a set of reasons explaining the existence of God and origins of the universe, yet his assertions have no explanatory power at all, then the thesis of his essay (providing an explanation for why God exists and created the universe) breaks down as a consequence.
Troys’ proof is looking less and less like a proof of God, and more and more like a description of his inner personal beliefs.

The above paragraph shows the explanatory power of the Word of God which we know is God's Word by what we are to observe, done so by the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God. Thus, the 4 Step Proof for God remains solid and unphased. Juliet's efforts are simply here personal beliefs which are her right to believe. God will not coerce her into receiving His salvation. Otherwise, she would not be made in the image of God to reject or to come to the cross to receive Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

Consider for example that the existence of a person does not explain a fire; various facts about that person might explain the fire. Similarly, the existence of God does not explain the universe, but various facts about God explains the universe; by conceding that God needs a reason to create the universe, Troy condemns himself to an infinite regress of reasons for reasons for reasons ad infinitum.
It does not follow that God needing His own reason to create the universe without vanity, would condemn anyone for accepting this truth. Since as we have shown there is not an infinite past of cause and effect we know then there is not an infinite number of causes. There is first God's initial reason. At some point He chose to create. Juliet condemns herself, because she uses this false reasoning which does not follow, to reject her Creator Jesus Christ. Through various facts of God, we know God exists. And through these revelations of God we accept God, get to know God, building a personal relationship with Him. In turn He imparts more grace and strengthens our spirit with wisdom by the Holy Spirit. One of those things He shows us is why He created. He created because He wants to walk with us who are His own.

In a nutshell, step 3 says "God is uncreated" and step 4 says "No one created God". Although step 3 and 4 take up about 50% of the proof, they are composed almost entirely of Troys’ preaching and condescending to non-members of his religion, he’s not making comments that contribute to a proof of God.
Step 3 says the Proof is talking about God of the Bible being uncreated, not some gods. Step 4 says there can not be an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, giving the reason why. You are misrepresenting the Steps. The rest of the words in Step 3 and 4 are vital components to show, therefore, further, that the only possible reasonable conclusion is that the God of the Bible is our Creator and He is uncreated. When I tell you these truths it is not to belittle you, but certainly I have to condescend down to your level to by listening to your complaints and addressing them specifically as I have done so. Since you are going to hell and are not saved, whereas I am saved and going to heaven, I must not to fall into your sin, but I must be willing to listen to your issues so as to give you an appropriate answer. This is what the Proof does. If you then reject the Proof it is because you condemn yourself to hell of your volition. Notice too that these words are not even preachy but help you understand whom the Proof is pointing to as the only One. You should let go of your polemic self-declarations for they are not helping you but betraying you.

Troy defines God is the uncreated creator. But that’s it. Troy has only provided a definition of God, but definitions can exist comfortably apart from the objects they define; for instance, I can define a unicorn as a beautiful magical horse with a single horn sticking out of its head, but all I’ve stated is a definition, the definition itself need not actually correspond to something actual in the universe. Similarly, Troy has failed to show that his definition corresponds to a being which actually exists; whatever God he is talking about only "exists" linguistically, it only "exists" in philosophy (actually, I wouldn’t say it exists in philosophy, this proof has been so bad that it hardly merits being called philosophy in the first place).
Definitions that are false can not exist comfortably from the objects of truth they attempt to define falsely. Even definitions that are true, but not flowing from the truth of the object are themselves will also be lacking because they are an independency from the object in their defining. Since we know that the universe did not happen all by itself, we know it was created. Ergo, the uncreated created. And all along the way through the Proof we see that only Jesus fulfills the requirements of the uncreated due to His sinlessness. God expands all things since God created all things. However He can be expressed, He provides that mode of understanding. The Proof is not a philosophy at all of men's minds for it runs much deeper in the intuitive conscience of the spirit. It is very simple, but very true. Unicorns are fantasy creatures. But it is no fantasy that nothing in nature happens all by itself or that we still sin, which shows us that there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effect, otherwise we would have been without sin by now.

You can see why it is not desirable to keep taking responses from people regarding the Proof because they are such futile efforts to disprove the Proof. They get down right boring as heck. I decided to take this response only because the person did put so much effort into it, even though it is still plagued with so much error. I did not want to leave the person high and dry, but provide my answer here as a help which he can refer to at his leisure.

There is one particular statement that Troy makes which is absolutely mind boggling: We are grateful to God through His wisdom and revelation for this 4 Step Proof for God that not only proves God exists, but undeniably points to the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit in the 66 books of the Word of God (the Bible).
Praise the Lord! No doubt is mindboggling since your spirit is dead to God.

My jaw dropped when I read that. That is the most presumptuous thing I’ve ever read in my life. Troys’ has not shown that God has anything to do with the Bible, his only explanation is a personal attack on non-believers, saying that their spirit is "dead to God". Troy has not shown that God, if he exists, is the God of the Bible, but asserted it without argument. He is begging the question to such extremes that he undermines his entire proof. Cosmological arguments cannot be used to proof a particular God of a religion, but only as a proof for some kind of deistic God.
This is not a presumption as you say, but gratitude for God's proofs of Himself in our relationship with Him. The Bible is the Word and the Word is Jesus and Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily and Jesus is God because only Jesus was sinlessly perfect, the perfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. This is true love that He would do this for us to save us from sin, death and perdition. The Proof proves God is uncreated which points to Jesus as the uncreated creator for Jesus never lied when He said He created. I do not attack you in saying you are going to hell, but I tell you this because I love you and don't want you to go to hell to be eternally separated from God. I would not wish this on my worse enemy. How can you avoid going to hell if you don't realizing you are going to hell? Self-declarations against this Proof are utterly mindless. To make such self-proclamations is the ultimate of begging the question which is utterly extreme because it is without basis. Since the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible is not a cosmological argument, but a proof which God reveals to us who are born-again, you're not understanding this is expected because your spirit is dead to God and are without the Holy Spirit. You don't even realize the evil spirit is in your spirit. How could you?

Its as if he doesn’t acknowledge the fact that not all theists are Christians much less trinitarians.
It is not "as if," but it is a fact, not all theists are Christians; in fact, most theists are not Christians. All Christians are trinitarians, for a trinitarian is one who believes in the Trinity of God: God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit.

There are very good reasons for suspecting that God has nothing to do with the Bible: The existence of many other holy texts with mutually exclusive conceptions of God.
This is not a valid argument since their conceptions are wrong as proven by the fact that they do not accept the sinless sacrifice that is Christ. One way to explain this is to say a person in a remote area of the world believes in God but never heard of Christ. Then he was presented the Word, of course He would accept Christ. This is the test. Whatever someone writes whether in antiquity or today, if it ultimately ends up rejecting Christ who was proven in the 4 Step Proof for God, then you know that person wrote in hostility towards God His creator. And since these many other texts misconstrued as being holy you admit are mutually exclusive, therefore, they can not both be true admittedly.

The fact the Bible represents the science and philosophy of the periods it was written.
The Bible does not represent science or philosophy, but it is wholly from God (who is never wrong) through revelation in the spirit as the Holy Spirit saw fit to reveal unto men. Science and philosophy are merely tools God provides, no matter what age we are in.

The fact its impossible to know if one is really talking to God.
This is not a fact. I have spoken to God thousands of times. Even now I have just spoken to God for you when I said, "God, please open the eyes of this person that can not see your love for him or her."

The fact some disputed letters of Paul appear in the Bible.
Men dispute, but that does not change the fact of which are God's Word and which are not.

The Bible is very anthropocentric, and the God of the Bible is very anthromorphic. There is no indication at all that, if God exists, he cares about humans. Given that humans are highly adapted species to their environment (as opposed to suggesting that the universe was fine-tuned to suit human needs), it appears the universe was not actually created with humans in mind at all. The God of the Bible is so unjustifiably anthropocentric that he is obviously manmade fiction.
For those who do not understand what this big word means, it means "Regarding humans as the central element of the universe" or "Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience." This is why I say don't use big words because a full sentence of simple words is better than a big word. So let us tear apart the sentence instead of the big vague word which people might have different conceptions about, then they would be arguing apples and oranges. Since man was made in the image of God, and nothing else was, we can observe this by seeing how man is distinctly different from all creation. We can do things none else can in the known universe. Also, we whom the Holy Spirit impress upon do not interpret everything exclusively in terms of human values and experience, for the objective truth is not the experience of many because they don't want to accept it. In the Bible though the object truth is accepted whether people like it or not. For example, Israel did not like it that they would be punished for hundreds of years for their sin, yet they are the ones God chose to reveal Himself to because they were the only nation that had an ear to hear. A false documented could have been created about how great Israel was, but instead we find in the Scriptures how utterly sinful they were. So much so God has given the new covenant to Christians beforehand before Israel receives her covenant promise to be the center of all nations.

Throughout the Bible we see how much God hates sin, how much He cares for us by being so merciful and forgiving. The universe was created out of His glory in all its splendor with the ultimate objective of God to be the center of the new city in the new earth and those who are saved to be with God as pillars of the new city. Praise God!

It always surprises me how people can't see how distinctly different we are than all of creation just by the things we have done and the most amazing miracles God performs in our lives.

All of creation is fine tunned, but not even for man, but for God. His grand purpose is immense.

We can not say man is the only purpose for God, but we certainly can say in our known understanding of this solar system we certainly are His main purpose. That is undeniable given man's distinctiveness and that God would break into creation to redeem us. What love! How sad that a man can not accept this loving sacrifice.

Troy makes no further comments meriting a response, nevermind some of his FSTDT worthy jaw droppers like "Animals today kill because of man’s sin" and "Could it be said that animals were possessed since the serpent was entered into by a demon in the garden? Yes. ... up from the deep disembodied demons came to inhabit the bodies of human or animals".
This is true. We see examples in the Scriptures of these things happening. Such simple truths cause ones jaw bones to drop. This is why I say it is not the truth that is unreasonable, but it is unloved.

Yahweh and I agree, this is an earnest attempt at a proof, but it fails for reasons including but not limited to: factual inaccuracies and some of the most outrageous leaping in logic I’ve ever seen; it begs so many questions from beginning to end; the premises are internally inconsistent; it is preachy when it could otherwise be providing support for its arguments; and it is very condescending to non-believers.
Yahweh and you do not agree as we have seen for you call the Son of God a liar; though, you don't have the courage to come out and use those exact words, which is certainly coy and cunning. The reason you make the many factual inaccuracies you have made as we have seen is because of your hostility to Yahweh. These were outrageous leaps of logic which I have shown to you each step of the way, begging the question. These are your internal inconsistencies and preachy for preachiness is founded in untruth regurgitated. Your pride is your condescension towards the death on the cross by the Son of God giving His life for yours and still you have the audacity to call Him a liar. Men kill, and you stand by their side in killing the only begotten Son of God. What disgrace! I can think of no greater sin than this. Instead of heeding the Christian's word when you reject the love given to you, you are rejecting all of God's children, and all prophets of the OT, even God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. What can God do but send you to hell? This is what you want.

...the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time.
It is not about language or cosmology, but spirit, that is, the intuitive conscience and communion of your spirit unto salvation so that God can regenerate your spirit (inner man) by quickening your old spirit to give you a new spirit. Only then will your mind of your soul be renewed, as well as your emotion and will. Once entering into the new creation by the old man from the old creation dying on the cross, resurrection life takes hold in which one day you will be given a newly clothed spiritual body to be with God for eternity with the focus towards the new city in the new earth. This is all effected through the substitution of Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of sins as well as identification with Christ when He brings you to the cross to die and be punished with Him on the cross which gives you power over sin and the selfish self.

the Gospels became mixed with Greco-Roman philosophy, which is loosely described as the "Hellenization of Christianity". This Hellenization is reflected in the letters of St Paul; contrary to popular opinion, he was not a gnostic. Paul was very much a cultural Greek and wrote to a Greek audience.
The Gospels did not become mixed with Greco-Roman philosophy. If it were true it could be shown, but none put forth any credible case. Self-declarations are centered on self. Thus, hellenization is the hopes of the unregenerates like mormons or Juliet or FSTDT. Paul was not a gnostic; which is not even popular opinion. Paul was set apart from culture, and walked according to the Holy Spirit. Greek was the language of the day.

"It’s rather like a puddle waking up one morning - I know they don’t normally do this, but allow me, I’m a science fiction writer - A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn’t it?... It must have been made to have me in it." And the sun rises, and it’s continuing to narrate this story about how this hole must have been made to have him in it. And as the sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking - and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it’s still thinking - it’s still trapped in this idea that - that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us we will continue to destroy it in the way that we have been destroying it, because we think that we can do no harm."
Puddles are inanimate creation; without consciousness. The Bible says the old earth will be without the sea: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev. 21.1). There is not the issue of sin with a puddle. But to God, the sin of man is deadly for the man was made in His image and should not sin. Sin can not commune with God, but must die on the cross. It is the Christian who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit that knows the harm of sin, its effect on nature, because he has appreciated that he could not keep the law which points to sin and that the law points to Christ for only Christ could keep the law by not sinning. It is the man who is the sinner who calls Jesus a liar, that if he can do this, he is capable of sin that could even destroy the world. Men talk of their greatness that they value God's creation, but that is just talk. If we realize what the Word says that all of creation is for God, not even for man, only then will we treat God's creation as God desires. Those who are unsaved will never have this apperciation in their inner depths because therein lies the evil spirit who also calls Jesus a liar.

Your proof was probably one of the more creative interpretations of the cosmological argument I've ever seen.
Forgive me for chuckling, but as was stated, the 4 Step Proof is still not strictly a cosmological argument for the reasons given: namely, the Proof includes the matter of sin and does not start off with saying all things that exist must have a cause or even agree with this statement since God exists yet He is without cause. Can you see it really is not beneficial to pigeonhole arguments like that?
:hilarious

Step 1: Humans have existed for a finite amount of time, because we are imperfect. The perfection of humans is not a measurement of the age of the universe, and more significantly its possible we could have been around for an infinite amount of time and still be imperfect (your theology says our imperfection is inherent, meaning we can no more separate our imperfections from our humanity than we can separate the roundness from a sphere).
The perfection of humans is a measurement of the age of the universe for if the universe had always been existing we would have had an eternity to be perfected, yet we still sin, showing that we we created as was the universe. As the hundreds before you, you make the same mistake of not getting past Step 1 by not examing the progression of man's exponential progression in conscience. I have said this already, but it falls on deaf ears. Instead of discussing this matter which is vital to the beginnning of the Proof it would have been better than you did not go to far away from examining this for it will help you to receive Christ into your life. As I stated previously,

"The furthest any agnostic/atheist got never even approached getting past Step 1 in which they do not see the exponential velocity in man's conscience. I could not get anyone to confront this in any meaningful way, because it is their conscience that is the problem, the very thing they don't want to look at in their inner man or inner woman which God is showing them if they would only listen. This is why the greater portion of the Bible is the OT law which no man could keep except Jesus Christ. From this you should know you have a sin nature which is not God's nature, and realize man has taken this sin nature for himself because of disobedience to God. In a very simple way we can say it this way: we will not keep killing each other for another million years. Ergo, Step 1 shows us God created because it doesn't take forever to be perfected into sinlessness."

We know unequivically that if the universe had existed for an eternity of the past, we would be without sin by observing the progression in the past 6000 years will not take another 6000 years to be without sin.

Our sin nature is not inherent, so when you said I said this, you are sinning bearing false witness. This is very dull-minded for you to do this. It was not inherent for Adam to sin, but it was quite abnormal for him to be disobedient to God.

Step 2: The universe needs a cause, that cause is God. Unfortunately, you haven't shown that the universe is actually an effect of a prior cause, and the intuitive belief that everything in nature being purely deterministic is false.
We have shown that the universe is an effect of prior cause as Step 2 shows, nothing in nature happens all by itself; therefore, it was caused. The odds against you are less than 1 in a trillion knowing the trillions of things that have causes and effects, not one of them without a cause. Knowing that nothing in nature happens all by itself is not intuitively without foundation as is your teaching, but is realized factually by observation that nothing in nature happens all by itself. This is very simple, so simple to reject is quite bizarre of a person. This only shows how absurd the unregenerate can get.

Step 3: You are stating that God is causeless by definition. However, this is only a definition of God, it hasn't been shown that the definition corresponds to something real in the universe.
We are not stating God is causeless by definition, but that Step 3 is stating the Proof is about God of the Bible who is causeless as disclosed in the Bible. It is not saying the God of the Bible is the God, but that this is what the Proof is about, so please do not make the mistake of trying to disprove some other god. This is all talked about in Step 3 at great length so you would not make this error yet you still do; so why I have to repeat it here shows why you need to be banned for belligerency and obstinacy which is not conducive for discussion. We have shown that God of the Bible created simply because nothing in nature happens (this includes time itself) all by itself and there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effect considering man still sins after all this time. Then we deduce that Jesus is God because of His sinlessness and He always told the truth; yet, men who were jealous or self-powering did not want to stop their sinning and give up self for Christ. Thus, the apostles were also put to death for the love they had in Christ also. This should speak to your entire being.

You should feel utterly ashamed of yourself that you don't stand up for Christ. You mind's thought should be utterly sickened by your beliefs. You choice should be to repent to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Will you?

Step 4: You are stating no one created God, because you are defining him as uncreated. This is a repetition of step 3.
No. Again you misread, your common theme. How can you try to even disprove something if you don't understand it to begin with? Step 4 says that if there was an eternity of the past of causes and effects of gods creating gods, you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but since you still sin you know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect. This all stated in the 4th Step already, so the fact that I have to repeat it here shows you are more interested in being mindlessly belligerent and obstinate, then giving up self for the truth. As a result of the 4th Step we realize that God of the Bible created given Christ. Step 3 is pointing out to you not to try to disprove some god, but it is God of the Bible the 4 Step Proof is about. Step 4 is about the supernatural causes and effects, whereas Step 1 deals with nature and time. Step 3 is established, so that you can ask the question in Step 4 rightly.

You totally misread Step 3 and Step 4. Don't be a dullard.

I think the errors in your proof are so numerous and significant that the proof fails.
Do you realize in all your thoughts, both you Juliet and FSTDT, that you introduced no new points? I pray that you review all the mistakes you made, that you will see you could not overturn or even find one fault with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

Since you introduce no new arguments, repeating what others have already said shown to be wrong, you are removed. The 4 Step Proof already dealt with these items you bring up. Read the Proof.

That is that.

Sesshiro

02-25-2006, 01:31 AM

"In Christ, faith is not blind."

If this is true, then there is a logical reason for god to be uncreated, which would mean there is no cause for god. This alone ruins your so-called perfect proof due to the fact that it operates under the fact that every effect has a cause, as you say.

Totally beside the point, it isn't even remotely necessary to talk about all Atheists, Agonostics, etc as if they are inferior to you. Also, you refered to all of 4chan as an Atheist site(or something to that effect) when you had no evidence of such a thing. Just something you should know, you aren't superior in some way to other people.

Churchwork

02-25-2006, 01:45 AM

"In Christ, faith is not blind."

If this is true, then there is a logical reason for god to be uncreated, which would mean there is no cause for god. This alone ruins your so-called pefect proof due to the fact that it operates under the fact that every effect has a cause, as you say.

Totally beside the point, it isn't even remotely necessary to talk about all Atheists, Agonostics, etc as if they are inferior to you. Also, you refered to all of 4chan as an Atheist site(or something to that effect) when you had no evidence of such a thing. Just something you should know, you aren't superior in some way to other people.

Every effect has a cause, and thus the cause for everything that is created has a cause except that which is uncaused.

The inferiority of atheists and agnostics is in theire not being born-again. This is a fact. They choose to be indepedent from God so they are without God's life. They do this because they self-exalt themselves above God. 99.9% of those at 4chan are going to hell. That is an easy call to make given what they do there.

God said that He is not respecter of persons (Acts 10.34), so I am the same as everyone else, made in the image of God. The only difference between your clan and myself is that they call Jesus a liar and God has not forgiven them for their sins, while God has forgiven me, because I believe in His only begotten Son, and so I have eternal life; you have eternal separation from God.

This is your choice.

Sesshiro

02-25-2006, 01:57 AM

"Every effect has a cause, and thus the cause for everything that is created has a cause except that which is uncaused."

Other than being slightly confusing(In wording) this does nothing to prove your point without also agreeing not every effect needs a cause, therefor a scientific theory of how exstance is what it is now is not less true than christian belief.

Churchwork

02-25-2006, 02:02 AM

"Every effect has a cause, and thus the cause for everything that is created has a cause except that which is uncaused."

Other than being slightly confusing this does nothing to prove your point without also agreeing not every effect needs a cause, therefor a scientific theory of how exstance is what it is now is not less true than christian belief.

This is not confusing. All things in creation are caused; this is always the case. The uncreated is uncaused and the reason for why is given in the 4 Step Proof agreeing that every effect has a cause in creation. Science, if it is true, agrees with the words of Christ. When science disagrees with God's Word it is not true; that is, the application of the laws of science have been misused somehow. Your point is flawed because you are petty, still not looking at the 4 Step Proof.

Sesshiro

02-25-2006, 02:12 AM

Your entire proof and arguement is assuming science argees with christian belief, which is not the case. You may want to rethink that.

Churchwork

02-25-2006, 02:16 AM

Your entire proof and arguement is assuming science argees with christian belief, which is not the case. You may want to rethink that.
Science that is true agrees with God's Word. If it were not the case you could show it, but you don't. This is then, your presupposing, without a reason, that science might not agree with the Proof, but the Proof proves science agrees with the Word.

Sesshiro

02-25-2006, 02:21 AM

Churchwork

02-25-2006, 02:26 AM

There is solid evidence to Darwin's Theory(Yes, I know, theories are not proven)which clearly does not agree with "with word". Even so, your proof is no more proven than Darwin's theory, which actually relies on more than intuition and twisted logic, as your proof does.

It agrees with Gen. 2.7 in one sense regarding the "dust," as this is the meaning of the body from dust. Darwin's theory only speaks about physical causes and effects since the amoeba; it does not address what occurred before the amoeba. Nor does it deal with the distinction of man's spirit that is unique from all of creation. Darwin's theory is limited in its scope and there it will remain. This is why the Proof goes beyond evolution, and deals with the cause and effects of evolving, even before the amoeba. Your logic is twisted and your spirit's intuition is corrupted. Since you find no fault with the 4 Step Proof, why blame it? That is illogical and corrupted like that great false accuser. Self-declarations (the "banal" and "recondite") are of no interest here.

Churchwork

03-01-2006, 05:18 PM

Step 1.
Since none have the ability to overturn the 4 Step Proof, sometimes I will go out and find someone's argument to show its flaw. This is one such case at the Randi Corporation, in which I am banned for no valid reason; banning me for truth given clearly is not a valid reason, for it is never a valid reason to put your head in the sand rand.

You are welcome to post your effort personally on the forum where it needs to be refuted at biblocality.com/forums for those that want to make the effort. Other forums do not qualify. Also, because of the censoring at Randi (their admitting I don't even post that much, so why ban? It is illogical). Please post my reply in this post on Randi if you like since I am not allowed to. Notice too they move the 4 Step Proof from the million dollar section so as not to have to confront the matter. This is all expected behavior for people who don’t want to accept the truth when it is staring right in front of them like a great neon sign. Let's begin.

If evolution has had infinite time to operate then we should by now be perfect. We are not perfect, therefore the Universe has not been around forever. (confused idea of evolution, but still vaguely sound reasoning)
If you admit you have confused the idea of evolution, then why do it? This is belligerence, warned not to do. And you admit you are being vague, then stop it. Don't do it. Since we have not had an eternity to be perfected you know the universe is not from an eternity of the past in cause and effects. Given the interpolation of the progression of our conscience in the past 6000 years, we know it will not take another 6000 years to reach sinless as Step 1 already said. This is scientifically proven by pure math, in conjuction with observing our conscience. So Step 1 holds true, not vaguely, but very precisely.

Step 2. Everything has a single cause. (hmmm, no real justification here, but apparently we're calling that cause "God".)
It does not say everything has a single cause, but that eveything has a cause. I find it funny that people like to put their own thought into what is being said to try to disprove something. This is lame. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, we know that it was caused. Since everything has a cause, therefore, the cause must be that which is uncaused. The big bang or other first event was caused by that which is uncaused so that when we compare all claimed uncaused causes only God wins out because of Christ's sinless sacrifice of which only God could be sinless. Sounds reasonable. Step 2 holds true and goes unchallenged.

Step 3. God is the only thing that was not "created" by something else. (apparently by definition).
You misread Step 3. Step 3 is not saying God was the only thing NOT created by something else, but rather, that the Proof is about God who was uncreated (not created), so that if you are going to try to disprove something, it is the attempt to disprove God of the Bible who is uncreated, not something else. How illogical it would be to try to disprove something other than what the Proof is about. This has all been explained in extensive detail so the fact that you would misread it, indicates your condition in a state of obstinacy and belligerency from which only God can extricate you. Still this step holds true, of course.

Step 4. Uhm, apparently there's only one God? (justified because, uh, we're not perfect, which we would have been had there been an infinite chain of gods - What the heck does that mean?)
Step 1 and Step 2 show God, yes. Step 4 already explains itself. Step 1 deals with natural cause and effect, whereas Step 4 deals with supernatural or other etheral cause and effects, rendering the same conclusion as Step 1, since we still sin, thus we have not had an eternity of the past to reach sinlessness. This Step holds as solidly as the day it was founded.

Wow. Staggering. Where's that million bucks?
Is it really true that this is the best proof and it "has never been challenged at all since the dawn of man"?
Yes, where is the million bucks? God is perfectly proven yet the award has not been given. This bespeaks of the unethicalness and poor conscience of Randi. This is really the best Proof of God of the Bible; it is in fact an extension of what God already said: look at the mountains and the stars and ask yourself, did you do that? Amen. Still to this day the 4 Step Perfect Proof has never been challenged since the dawn of man. Praise the Lord! This is the Proof of the Power of God's Word which the 4 Step Proof agrees.

Let me be the first to challenge it since the dawn (at least today's dawn): If God is perfect, shouldn't his creation be perfect? You have said that we are flawed and sinful, shouldn't that reflect badly on our creator? I'd say God is not perfect, because apparently he/she/it is incapable of creating anything better than us. Seems a rather sad excuse for a perfect being if it can't do better.
His creation is perfect. The fact that we are made in God's image perfectly does not mean we are robots or automatons that can't fall, otherwise then that would not be a perfect creation of having a free will like God's to have the right to fall; though God does not because He is God. It would reflect badly on God if He was merely a robot manufacturer, lol. God can't create anything better than us because we are the best thing He could create in creation - we are made in His image out of His glory whom He wants to walk with those who receive His uncreated life. What glory to God that we are His best creation! And because we are made in His image He righteously according to His holiness does not treat us as instrumental value, but as intrinsic value. Ergo, He will not annihilate our souls, but for those who refuse salvation will go to eternal separation in hell, while the saved with be with God in the new city and the new earth. Praise the Lord!

In layman's terms there is lots of bad people out there, like Satan (not a person), who are self-exalting themselves separating themselves apart from God's will.

I don't know why I bother, except for mild curiosity about where you will go next in your rant. It's a bit like watching a drunk on the dance floor. You almost can't help cheering and clapping just to encourage the poor fool to do another ridiculous spin. Yay! Wave your hands again! Now jump up and do the splits...
You bother because you have a spirit of God-consciousness that intrinsically is made in God's image has a right to receive salvation. But the choice is still afforded to you, which God awaits. You do seem like a drunk dancing around God. I was like you too unsaved before I was born again so I know what you are going through. Your ridiculous spin has been shown flawed to the bone, but I do not clap for your independency and reviling against the very reason you are here. Stop projecting yourself, jumping around, for it makes you hellbound. Do you not know you are a bad person? And if you leave God no choice but to cast you into hell forever, righteously that is exactly what God will do, to keep you eternally separated from His own that He wants to be with. Your being made in His image has the full capacity to come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. No one is forcing you to reject the truth.

My prayers go out to you. Listen to the music in the chat room to soften your outerman, then read the Proof again, and read my words here, that continue to show you are in error. It is so easy to see, a child can see it.

Churchwork

03-03-2006, 04:40 PM

Conclusion: every argument against the Proof I have seen failed, and do you know how they fail? They require misreading something about the Proof such as what ChristineR writes, who is a critical thinker, but critically erroneous in thinking. You can waste your time reading ChristineR, but in so doing what happens? You don't get to see how she misreads the Proof if you are not discerning. From time to time, I will allow some people to post their efforts here, if their thoughts are not so dull, so you can see how it is true, the cause of error is their misreading something, thus rendering their effort unsuccessful.

spiritplumber

03-09-2006, 02:02 AM

Are you claiming that your proof is inerrant? I thought that Christians believed that the Bible, and only the Bible, is inerrant.

Churchwork

03-09-2006, 03:47 AM

Just because the Bible is inerrant, does not mean other things can not be inerrant, that is, without mistakes. For example 2+2 =4. This is a flawless calculation. How silly it would be if Christians believed everything had a mistake. Do you see how you misread Christians? In your heart you sin bearing false witness, overassuming which is illogical and without the love of the Lord. After hundreds of tries, no one even came close to finding fault against the Proof of God of the Bible. The Holy Spirit gave me this Proof, and it remains solid because it was founded on the Spirit of truth.

The essential 4 Steps are perfect. Therefore, for you to still reject Christ after understanding the Proof of God, is punishable with eternal separation from God, since this is in fact what you want. In fact, you never even needed to hear the Proof, for you are made in God's image already without excuse. However, the Proof is powerfully convincing since it is perfectly unchallenged, and thus quite helpful to unregenerates. In the same way, we give the Gospel to lead people to Christ.

Churchwork

04-03-2006, 07:58 PM

Ultimately, where do people fail in trying to disprove the Proof, that is, where do they clam up which if they continued with the reasoning of Step 1, they would give their lives to Christ? In other words, what do they fail to look at, where do they stop short that make them dullards?

Where people stop short is taking a look at the myriad of examples of the exponential increase in progression of our conscience so that we know that it will not take another 6000 years to reach sinlessness. It is very painful for an unsaved man to look at their own conscience and reason out that indeed, it will not take the time from Adam to now again to reach sinlessness in the saved, while the unsaved are cast into perdition, an eternal separation from God, though not annihilated

So, instead what the unregenerate does is create a plethora of horrible reasonings that are intellectually dishonest, that in any class they would get an F on. Apparently the unsaved don't mind being absurdly unreasonable. They don't get embarrassed by being belligerent and obstinate, because their conscience is so utterly darkened and deadened to God they feel nothing.

There is no fear of the Lord because they believe the worse thing that could happen to them is to cease to exist, so no big deal! What they don't realize is they are in fact made in the image of God which can never be annihilated. They can never cease to exist. Therefore, they must be resurrected to GWT and cast into hell forever. God does not treat us as instrumental value, but instrinsic value because He wants to walk with us who love Him. We were created for Him. For the unsaved, death is never a way out. When the unsaved reach the Great White Throne, they will be amazed at how dumb and selfish they were to refuse God's loving and saving grace through the atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross for forgiveness of sins to bring souls into the new creation.

pajken

04-16-2006, 05:26 AM

Let us assume that I accept your arguments that there exists an entity that transcends the system of cause and effect. I, like you, define this as God. My God created everything but does not provide detailed answers for every aspect of existence. Neither does he give me any specifics about his qualities or the way he created everything. To figure this out is left as a task for me. He wants me to do this by focusing on the important things like the fact that I am here and what this means. He is utterly uninterested in me finding out unverifyable details about who was married to whom 2000 years ago and things like that. My God places no responsibility on me to impose my findings on others. However, my God makes it very clear that I have a great responsibility in respecting my peers and their understanding. He also instructs me to call a spade a spade.

In leaving out the dogmata, he has effectively taken away the basis of using him as a reference when spreading ignorence and hatred, and in opressing others. This means that what he lacks in described features and history, he makes up in integrity - No one has ever started a war or justified atrocities in his name (in addition of being omnipotent, he is also quite clever!). Looking at the track-record of organised christianity, we can clearly see that we are not talking about the same deity.

In order for someone to claim that they can present a proof, what they present must not be depending of who interprets it or who is the arbitror. This is the very definition of what truth is; it is not negotiable or relative. If I say that the proof presented applies equally to my definition of what God is as it does to a traditional, christian definition, your answer cannot be: "No, and it is like that just because I say so (or God says so)". If you do that, what you are defending is a "beleif system" and not a "proven reality". This is perfectly fine - you are entitled to do so but please let us call a spade a spade...

Churchwork

04-16-2006, 07:31 AM

pajken,

Why assume anything? It is proven in the Proof (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm). And this Proof is the basis for the Word of God. God doesn't even need to be so merciful as to give this Proof because He simply wants men to believe His Word. He does not use spectacular ways to prove Himself. Jesus said, "But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them" (Luke 16.29). The rich man perished because he had not heard the word of Moses and the Prophets, whereas Lazarus was saved because he did hear Moses and the Prophets.

Jesus said, "Beginning from Moses and all the prophets interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (24.27). Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead," (24.44-46).

God has already given us the Bible. Even though people sin so terribly, they will not be instantly stricken to death by lightening. God has hidden himself to such a degree that men begin to imagine there is no God. And he said unto him, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (16.31).

Now you know why perdition is needed.

The Bible is a a book of spirit for our spirit. It is to God's good pleasure we discover truths in agreement with the Word. The qualities God unfolds are His righteousness (His way of doing things) and His holiness (His nature). This is you can trust. He wants you to focus on His Son, because if you look away from His Son, you are also looking away from the Father. The only way to the Father is through the Son. By focusing on His Word, He will show you why you are here. I already know why we are here, and for me personally, I know my task set before me.

Why do you have an issue to even mention whom is married to whom 2000 years ago? God does not coerce anyone, but this does not mean to not speak the truth of the Word in sharing the Gospel. You can give the Gospel to people without being imposing. If you do not believe Jesus is God, your god then is Satan, for Jesus died on the cross for you and said He is God. He did not lie. If you don't believe Him, then you would be calling Him a liar? What say you?

Jesus mentions 4 things why bad things happen (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2022&postcount=1) to good people. This is God's integrity, His perfect way of doing things. The question is, Do you agree with Him? Do you agree that all will be recompensed?

Indeed, we are not talking about the same diety, because you accuse Jesus Christ who created you. This means you are going to hell. Do not doubt this for the Holy Spirit has already condemned you (John 3.18) because you do not believe in the only begotten Son of God. This is your choice you are allowed to have, in being made in God's image.

Your issues with Christendom is already dealt with in Matthew 13 in which God describes the sins of Christendom (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew_13.htm) (the outward appearances of the kingdom of heaven today) by the unsaved tares who try to look like the saved wheat, which Jesus said, He will put his sickle to the tares. The tares are in the kingdom of heaven, but unsaved. You are outside the kingdom of heaven and unsaved.

"Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn" (Matt. 13.30).

The reapers are the angels, and so is the sickle. Otherwise, people may use this passage to justify the religious inquisitions of the Roman Catholic Church. The following parable is that of the mustard seed which represents how fat Christendom has become quite unlike the nature of this small seed, and in Rev. 17 the RCC is considered the woman who sits on the beast (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Revelation_17.htm), that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8). So you see, Jesus is against the tares, that which you argue against as well, but you still reject Jesus Christ, which means you are still unsaved. You may even accuse Jesus of being dogmatic. You may even use a lame excuse to reject Christ by blaming the tares, even though they are unsaved also, just like you.

The most deceiving words I have ever heard people speak are those when a person says, they don't believe in religion. Jesus does not believe in religion (occult and false religion) either as we see (Luke 13.1-3). But we all need religion, that is worship. We all worship, but what do you worship? You worship self for you say you have a god, but that god is not Jesus. You can remain coy about your unascertained god, but that is an unrighteous trait of your god, for being coy and it reflects badly on you. Jesus was murdered and you call him a liar, saying he lied. This speaks volumes about your god.

Your god is a god of self. It will proclaim itself and exalt itself, even to the point of rising yourself above Jesus Christ who died on the cross for your sins, selflessly. Jesus said if you are not for Him, you are against Him. He has the power to cast you into hell, and He will do exactly that if He can not wash away your sins before Father by the precious blood if you refuse His sacrifice for you.

What your god lacked previously, he still lacks now by the way you treat the love that was given to you in Christ, like the good samaritan that was the good neighbor (Luke 10.37).

Those who verify the Proof for God of the Bible are brothers and sisters in Christ who have a renewed mind. The very definition of truth is not a panel of unsaved men for they reject the truth of the love given to them as though they murdered Jesus in their hearts. A panel is not truth, for politicians are elected falsely, for example and are often not the best person for the job.

Therefore, how are you to know if this Proof is true or not? Read it (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm). Discover that you can find no fault with it. That's the Proof. It is very personal experience where you can not find fault, because it is true. The truth is discerned not by a particular person or panel per se, but any person who accepts the truth, and that determination ultimately falls back upon God, because He created all the laws in the natural realm and the supernatural realm, and reveals what we can or cannot know.

The reason your god does not fit the profile in the Proof is because your god did not die on the cross for your sins, selflessly. You must see that your god is too selfish to do this. Therefore, my God will remain, but yours will be destroyed as well as its followers. Your god is limited to a select few or only you alone. God of the Bible was shared by 40 writers, it is the most popular book on the planet today, and about 1 in every 3 people at least call themselves Christian.

Let's call a spade a spade as you wish: you are unsaved because you call Jesus a liar, the only sinless man that ever lived and died on the cross for your sins to give you eternal life. Behind your god is the selfish center placing you at the center of the universe in which you are under Satan. Just as Satan is going to hell, so are you. You said, lets us call a spade a spade. This is spiritual reality.

pajken

04-17-2006, 02:41 AM

Troy,

I mentioned the issue of "who was married to whom" as one example of a detail specified in the bible which I fail to understand the significance of. Just an attempt to try to explain my position.

When did I ever accuse Jesus Christ of lying? I have no opinion of anything what this person might have done or said. I think that you have a strong opinion on the matter and I think you have the right to that. For all I know, you could be 100% correct. What I do not understand is why I can respect your position and you seem to have difficulties accepting mine.

How can you say that I will end up in hell? You know almost nothing about me and still you claim to be able to say where I am headed after I die (And I certainly have no association with someone you call Satan. I do not have any knowledge of such a person/entity. What a perfectly random thing to say!). I find it surprising that someone who is speaking on behalf of a good and merciful God would make comments like that. If you try, can you understand that statements like these are much too personal and quite offensive? If you are trying to intimidate me into aligning my understanding to yours, I must say that this strikes me as being quite medieval. On the other hand, it could serve as a good clue to one of the reasons why agression and violence seem to follow organised religion like a dark shadow.

Troy, citing the bible and repeating that the proof is true does not, in itself, make it more so. It only shows that you are a great believer in your God and in repetition.

Are you saying that the proof only works when it is arbitred by " are brothers and sisters in Christ who have a renewed mind"? In that case, we are done - if the proof is not absolute in the meaning that is true regardless of who is looking at it, it is not a proof but a statement of belief. If the proof works in a generic way: "Perfect Proof of God of <insert you holy book of choice>", it could be applied on any other definition of God. And in doing so, you must allow the same rule as to who must judge if it holds or not as you have applied yourself. Since most definitions of God (including Christianity) are mutually exclusive, it logically follows that the proof either is false (in its entirety) or it cannot be applied on the God as defined in the Bible.

Let me be clear: A statement of belief is also something important and valuable but it should not be confused with a proof. And, for all that I actually know, you could be perfectly correct in your definition of God. You simply have not proven it to be so.

On your website, you have encouraged me to try to disprove your proof. This is what I have done. Anyone who is truly "intellectually honest" will agree to this.

Churchwork

04-17-2006, 04:32 AM

pakken,

I am not sure what you are referring to specifically since you don't say. But I can say that God promised a physical line of souls all the way down from Adam (first God-conscious man) to Christ (firstfruits) to point to Christ on the eternal cross, by seeing whom beget whom. Since the finished work of Christ, this pattern has changed by splitting the veil rent. I realize this truth does not help your position.

You have not spoken for Jesus being God, which is to say, you are against Him, thus calling Him a liar. You don't have to say "He is lying" to say he is lying. Having "no opinion" is calling Jesus a liar, since if you are not for Christ, you are against Him, which is calling Him a liar. Remember, He said, if you are not for Him, you are against Him. By holding no opinion, you are against Him, thus calling Him a liar.

Jesus said these words, not I. You are not really accusing me, but you are accusing Jesus already without even seeing the verse where He said this. Why overassume? This is not humility. God's Word is not an opinion, but a fact. An opinion can be wrong. A fact cannot. How can you ask me to respect your opinion, when you call Jesus a liar? He gave His life for you, and you call Him a liar. You should never ask someone why they don't respect liars, for it is obvious the reason: sinning bearing false witness is a sin.

You asked how I know you are going to Hell? Again, Jesus already said why. He said in John 3.18 that you are condemned already to go to hell. You have no reason to doubt His statement. You are not really asking me this question, but your question is put to God why is He going to send you to hell? He gave the answer. Thinking you at the center of the universe is not the guiding principle to salvation. Your salvation is dependent on receive the blood to wash away your sins so that you can be sanctified. You have in no uncertain terms said that you reject the blood of God's forgiveness. God needs to administer this blood because all men are born into sin. All men deserve to be struck by a lightening bolt this second and the entire human race through into hell as this is the just penalty for sin. The only way to remove that sin in God's eyes, is if the person accepts His only Begotten Son, because only His Son was sinless.

You certainly have a deep relationship with Satan, for you are a fallen man, and the evil spirit entered your spirit when you were born into sin. The Holy Spirit can not enter your spirit to remove the evil spirit unless you are born-again and receive new birth to enter into the new creation.

The knowledge of this relationship you have with Satan need not be a conscious day to day, How are you doing Satan? Well fine, you say. How are you? he asks back. Remember, your spirit is dead to God and alive to Satan. You don't even know you have a spirit to know that the evil spirit is there because your soul has smothered your spirit, so of course you don't think you have a relationship with Satan, but it is easy to see even over the internet by your words your relationship with the Devil is profound. It is not difficult at all to see. I understand your flesh says it is a random observation because that is just another one of those lame excuses and sins bearing false witness, but as you can see, belligerently saying it is random is not justifiable, nor have you made your case.

A righteous God who is merciful has said this truth to us all, and in so saying, He also says how to be saved from it. Why do you reject the love given to you? It is because you want to go to hell. You like your sin nature, and you like being a bad person for as long as you have in your flesh. This is observed in your self-exaltation and self-centered opinions that are false. What you shut your mind down to is the fact that God's law requires you be resurrected to GWT, and then cast into the lake of fire without your soul ever being annihilated, because you are not instrumental value to God, but intrinsic value. There, you will maintain conscious awareness of your eternal separation from God. You have a foretaste of this now it is a foretaste of hellfire.

Sinners certainly find such statements personal and offensive as I once did too before I was saved. This has never been in doubt. Nevertheless, such offense and personal truth does not change the fact of the matter that you desperately need to accept these truths by repentance which fulfills the condition for God's entry into your life. Sinners don't want to accept they are sinners, so shall they receive hell. It is too personal and offensive for them to accept the truth and would prefer to live a lie in their seared conscience for the time they have left in their flesh. They may even engender the thought that they won't be resurrected for hell, but they will.

It is understandable that your flesh and the evil spirit in your spirit will find you the excuses you need to keep separated from God forever, such as these mischaracterizing words that you accuse the brethren with: "intimidate" and "medieval," but it is not the case at all, for sin leads to death and the second death (hell). This fact is true in all centuries. The propitiation of your sins has been given, which you reject, and thus, you are really rejecting the source of how and from whom you came to be in existence in the first place. It is so easy to see, but not so easy for a blind man. If a parent is loving, then the child disowns the parent, what do you think of that? That child may have to be sent to some school for deliquents. How much more true of man made in God's image. The main difference is there are no more chances after you leave the body of flesh and blood, to enter into the lake of fire.

You're asking about organized religion, and why there has been acts of violence. The answer is simple: for the same reason such acts of violence exist in non-religions: the flesh. Hilter killed 6 million Jews. Stalin killed 20 million Russians. What was their non-religion? Humanism and natural selection. Regions fight to preserve their beliefs. You pride yourself on being neither of these groups because you do not kill people in war, yet. But realize, this is your point of pride in your "good self", which you allow the evil spirit to instill in you to keep you separated from receiving God's atonement. Jesus never killed anyone, so it would make sense those in Christ would not either. You agree with Christ against the religious tares (Rev. 17, 14.8) and occult (Luke 13.1-3), yet you call Jesus a liar, because you are living in your good self, but the good self can never save you. Only God can save you from your sin soaked spirit, soul and body (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoulbody.htm). So much sin, is it really so surprising that what must happen to you?

Think of your reasoning as an idol which you place above your creator. You say you have a god, but this god calls Jesus a liar an so do you, yet you have no reason not to be for Christ, not even a possible consideration. The Gospel has been preached to all the world, so you are without excuse to say pretentiously, you do not know what He said. To stand back while the Word has been available to you all your life, to say you don't know what He said is just your flesh reviling Jesus by never reading what He said. You love the world so much, and who is the god of this world in the dispensation of grace? Satan. The Bible has been in your grasp all your life. God will not forgive you if you do not repent to the cross. That I can personally and offensively guarantee you because God's Word does not lie.

pajken, you wrote, "Troy, citing the bible and repeating that the proof is true does not, in itself, make it more so." Not more so, but just as true as it was when it was first said! What this really shows, is the truth is not unreasonable, but it is unloved. This is why there is the Proof, and you find no fault, yet still reject the truth. Now you know why Hell exists, because it is for those who self-declare themselves in separation from God to be independent of Him forever. As you wish. That is your choice. You have noone to blame but yourself.

Only those who are saved can accept the Proof, because only the saved have entered into the new creation to believe something so reasonable. Even though the logic is perfect, and you have nothing to say against it, you still do not accept it because of the belligerent evil spirit in your spirit that does not need a reason to reject something.

If someone only knows how to do addition (you, because you are not saved and going to hell), you can never know how to do math unless God gives you the grace to learn how to do math (God's children). In that case, since you reject this truth (math), and are held back in school, and you declare "we are done" as per your statement according to the truth of what has been said here. I shalln't cast what is holy unto dogs further. So at your unwitting request, I will remove your account and pray for you to one day come to the cross to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

The Proof is true no matter who looks at, irrespective of who looks at, but only Christians can understand it to the point of accepting it because only Christians have a regenerated spirit with God's life. You do not have God's uncreated life, because your spirit is dead to God, so no matter how pure and true something is, you will still reject it (it being the the truth to lead you to Christ) because you are a bad person who is going to hell. The only way for this not to occur is if you repent to the cross, and this right you have exists because you were made in God's image to be able to receive God's saving grace, which you reject. Could there be anything more insane?

I have told you the truth.

The Proof does not work in anyway but to lead to Christ. No other qualifies, than does Christ, which the Proof already shows. So to keep talking about it, while not seeing that it is so by being selfless to read it, is merely vanity and petty talk on your part. Another valid reason for your removal! Therefore, those who would judge it who are unsaved, would immediately be disqualified from discerning the Proof. They can humbly see that it is true once they are saved, and it can help convince one to Christ, but not until one is saved can they truly appreciate the Proof or the Bible to have a relationship with the Word. That appreciation and acceptance only comes from being saved. God only gives you the means to the cross by free-choice. What unfolds afterward can not be comprehened by the unsaved because they are unsaved. This is perfect cause and effect. The old creation can not perceive the happenings in the new creation, just as Christians, though we have a foretaste of heaven (and the new city), we can not fully comprehend it all because we still have not been given a newly clothed spiritual body from which to be resurrected with to the the throne (Rev. 7.9) or to the air (1 Thess. 4.15-17). Even when we are first resurrected we will not have a full appreciation of the new city (Rev. 21) until after the millennial kingdom is completed (Rev. 20.2-7), which has yet to begin.

There is only one definition of God and that is in Christianity, nowhere else. There are definitions of others what they perceive God to be, but they are wrong if they reject Christ as we have seen. Each of their beliefs can be shown to be false or limiting. Your god is both false with its errors as well as limiting to your opinions mostly: a self-created god. Not most, but all different views of God are mutually exclusive. Let me explain. You can't say your god does not agree with Christ while saying they are not mutually exclusive. That is a contradiction and nonsense. Therefore, since all definitions perceived to be God are mutually exclusive, it stands to reason as I have shared with you, that it logically follows that the Proof would be true in its entirety because not only no non-Christian but neither do my brothers and sisters in Christ find fault with it, and thus it continues to remain the foundation of the Word of God which does not come from me, but was originated by God of the Bible. It is also found in the Bible too, since Jesus is the Word and verses provide us the same finding.

Let me be clear: the Proof is not a statement of belief but it is a Proof of God of the Bible. Self-declarations are irrelevant when you say the proof has not been shown, for it has: nothing in your words speak to the contrary. You just can't see it because you are going to hell, and that is what you want, so no amount of truth can convince you if it is your desire to go to hell. This relegates your opinion the cause of your going to hell and giving no consideration to the fact that you can find no fault with the proof. Without a regenerated spirit, you will have these contradictory thoughts (easily exposed) that can never be resolved, because they will alway be wrong. Some say this is being a dullard! I say the same. People don't mind such contradictions as the reasons for their rejecting God.

You said you disproved the Proof, but you have not done so, as given by my counter to your words in this response which show your errors in what you had deemed as being a disproof. Anyone who is being intellectually honest with themselves would agree with this. This therefore, shows, you have been intellectually dishonest with yourself as are all those who are unsaved; that is why they are going to hell, because not a one of those who are going to hell want to accept they are rejecting God for the real reason: they are bad people.

Wow!

DRay563

07-04-2006, 05:34 PM

Let me first establish that I am a Christian who believes in earnestly seeking truth. I feel it is my job, as well as the job of everyone else, to find that which is true within the bounds that God has established for us. That being said, it is important to analyze that which is real and to some degree rely upon scientific observation (that is, where it does not obviously contradict the Word of God), especially where science is virtually infallible (empirical and observational science, not predictive science). That being said, all of what I will say from this point forward is what I consider to be true based on logic, rational thought, and current scientific evidence, all of this presented from an Atheistic standpoint (as this argument cannot presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God). Let it also be known that my attempts to refute (or help refine) the argument of "4 Step Proof of God" is not for personal glory, but rather to help continue uplifting God and what is truth, for God is truth (John 14:6).

Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity.

(quote taken from the second sentence of the first paragraph of Step 1)

I find several problems with this statement. First is that this statement goes against scientific evidence. The idea of an endless amount of time leading towards perfection is both counter-intuitive and counter-evidential. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all closed systems undergo an accumulation of entropy, such that even if there is a located decrease in entropy, the total amount of entropy in the system will increase. The nature of the Universe as a closed system has not been proven or refuted, as the understanding of the curvature of spacetime has three possibilities. Two possibilities, negative curvature and no curvature, lend themselves to an infinite and unbounded Universe that is an open system. One possibility, positive curvature, lends itself to a closed system, in which the Laws of Thermodynamics can and would apply. Therefore, if one were to postulate that the curvature of spacetime is positive and therefore a closed system, an eternity would lend itself to chaos (as this is what entropy is a measure of, the amount of useless energy or chaos in a system) rather than perfection. If one were to postulate that the curvature of spacetime was either negative or none at all, then this would lend to an open system and the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply. However, there is nothing in the evidence that would suggest perfection would be a result of an infinite system; rather, only the possibility of anything as there would be infinite mass and infinite energy.

The second problem I see is the direct connection between sin and the evolution of the cosmos. You have quite clearly defined the evolving nature of the cosmos as being both biological and non-biological, and that given enough time, this biological and non-biological evolution would result in perfection. Now, assuming that such a conclusion is true (even though I just spent a little bit of time establishing why I think it is not true), there is an inherent flaw in this line of reasoning. Sin did not enter the cosmos until approximately 6000 years ago. In fact, it says in Genesis that everything that God made "in the beginning" was good! Therefore, prior to any sin being in the world, everything was already perfect. Once sin entered into the world, there has been an overall degeneration of Creation.

To provide an example of this, let us look at gene mutation and incestual relations. A common question asked is "where did Cain's wife come from?" Well, Cain's wife came from the same lineage he came from: the loins of Adam. Now, it's possible that his wife came from one of Adam's sons or grandsons, we aren't sure of this, so we shouldn't be terribly dogmatic. Fact of the matter is, one of Adam's sons had to marry one of Adam's daughters to continue to produce offspring (or Adam had to procreate with one of his daughters). This raises quite a few eyebrows, given not only the Levitical laws but also the obvious.... disfigurement that usually accompanies incestual procreation. The reason for this is obvious though. Let us say that a mother and a father have a son and daughter. The father has certain mutated genes (most of which are easily overcome by good genes) and he passes these mutated genes to his son and daughter. Now, the son and daughter decide to procreate.... and in doing so, they both pass along these mutated genes to their single child. Because of this close-relatedness and the gene mutation build-up within a family line, disfigurement is usually the result of procreation within a family line.

However, this would not have been a problem during Adam's time, as there wouldn't have been mutated genes to pass along. Therefore, there wouldn't have been any problems with incestual relations resulting in disfigurement due to the accumulation of mutated genes. And this is where Cain's wife (or at least one of the sons' wives) came from: his sister. And this is a great example of the overall degeneration, not perfection, of the human race as time has worn on. This degeneration is the natural result of sin being in the world! Sin corrupts everything. Even the animals, originally plant-eaters (Genesis 1:30), many of them have become carniverous or at least omniverous, rather than getting closer to the alignment of their original state.

As a clause to this problem that I see, let me say that there has been a recent emergence of order within the seen chaos. A professor at Yale did a study and proved that given an open system where there is an infinite source (the sun) and an infinite sink (the earth), there will be a local decrease of entropy. Hence the development of technology, the overall moral nature of mankind, the establishing of global laws.... etc. However, the evidence on earth does not establish the evidence universally. It a logical fallacy to give to the whole that which can be seen of a part (you wouldn't call a whole car blue just because the seatbelt was blue). Also, this recent emergence of order does not counteract or deny the degeneration of sinfulness as it has accumulated over the generations. This degeneration is becoming more and more painfully obvious, not only within the animal kingdom and within gene mutation, but also with the spiritual deadening of society as a whole (America is a great example) and the lack of emphasis on God as the key to life (and more of an emphasis on man's ability and scientific reasoning to explain life and reality as a whole).

The third problem I see with this is that cause and effect has been debunked within the scientific community. Cause and effect are wonderful for Newtonian physics, even to some degree Einsteinian physics. However, once you leave these realms and begin moving into quantum physics, cause and effect don't apply. Cause and effect are principles based on the predictability of things. Given a certain condition, a certain object will do a certain thing, 100% of the time. In quantum physics, however, all objects live by the rule of probability. There is a certain chance that they will do a certain thing, given a certain condition.... but they could also do something else! Even more so, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for the creation and destruction of particles, seemingly at random, within a false vacuum state of energy. Where we see nothing (space), there is in fact ambient energy and within this energy, particles are somewhat circumventing (but not breaking) the law of conservation of energy. They create themselves (a pair of a particle and an anti-particle) from this energy and then recombine into the same energy they were made from. There is no cause, no rhyme or reason discernable, other than the reason that there cannot be emptiness (the impossibility of a perfect vacuum).

Now, I will say this. There is a cause for everything, and that cause is God. But, since the conclusion of this proof is that God exists, we cannot use the conclusion to prove the premise. Since, from an Atheistic and purely scientific standpoint, there is no deducable cause for the things we observe and measure in the quantum level, cause and effect is a law that doesn't apply in that world. That being said, it is unsound to use the law of cause and effect to prove the evolving nature of the cosmos (as the cosmos is made up of, and therefore bound to, the nature of the quantum level).

Second, if the universe and time are without a cause and continued to exist in the eternity of the past in causes and effects, then this simply reverts us back up to Step 1 which shows why there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects.

(quote taken from the first sentence of the third paragraph of Step 2)
I have spent time arguing with an Atheist on the CARM boards about the nature of this type of argument. And I walked away with a very important conclusion that I hope you will accept rather than reject.

There is no particular reason to argue for or against a "beginning" or "no beginning," as both can be reasonable and neither can be disproven, using merely logic and science. If one wishes to argue for an unbounded past, such that there is an infinite regression, this is possible as it would not take an infinite amount of finite steps to traverse such a regression. Let me explain.

Traversal requires a beginning point and ending point. The end point is obviously where we are now, the present. The beginning point cannot be defined as "back unto infinity" because such a point is non-existent. It is logically inconsistent to define a point "infinity away" because there is no way to establish such a point except perhaps in your mind. That being said, any established point to traversal must necessarily be a finite distance away from the end point, being the present. Since such these two points, by definition, can only be separated by a finite distance, there is an infinite amount of regression time prior to these two points, and there was not an infinite amount of traversal required to get from one point to the other. Therefore, since you can only establish one point, there is not an infinite amount of finite steps required to traverse this gap.

In fact, it is somewhat counter-intuitive to argue against this type of logic, as we believe that God always has been. Since there was never a time without God, it is more reasonable to assume an infinite regress than to not. Since we already have an infinite regress established, it becomes merely opinion to establish that God is the brute fact that must be rather than the Universe.

You might, however, revert back to your argument of perfection, or even try and to establish my argument for eventual total chaos (I noted someone referred to the "Heat Death") and say that the Universe cannot be in existence for an infinite regress. However, current physics models allow for such a belief (even though, in reading them, I find them highly consistent with science fiction, they are none-the-less some of the current models for the existence of the Universe). Take for instance, one can believe in the infinite sea of indeterminite energy from which a quantum fluctuation is derived. Or, if you prefer, you can believe in the nucleation of true vacuum bubbles within a sea of false vacuum, and the collision of two such bubbles allows for unfathomable particle generation. Both of these models are derived from an infinite regress of an open system (in which Entropy will not be accumulated) and say that the visible universe is nothing more than one of many universes (derived from the concept that our Universe is in fact a black hole and the farthest distance we can see is our event horizon).

These models allow for belief in something aside from God to establish not only the imperfection we see, but also the universe we see. There are still some problems with the theories, but neither is physics a comprehensive study of all that is. As was argued to me, and I have come to agree, it was merely my presuppositions that made me posit that God is the brute fact rather than some of the other explanations offered. I still posit God and my "opponents" still posit physics, but it is an important recognition to make that there are other reasons rather than merely science and logic that help us determine what we believe.... and that is our own conditioning.

In Christ,
Daniel

Churchwork

07-04-2006, 08:50 PM

The 4 Step Proof states clearly that it "does not presume God first, since notice I did not mention God first." So, DRay, you may be overassuming that the Proof would "presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God."

Interpolated predictive science is most valid on its trajectory in all walks of life. To simplify this is so, take for example, the increasing size of the sun. We know eventually one day, in about 5 billion years from now, the earth will be burnt up and be without the sea because of the increasing size of the sun. This a certainty. Scientists also agree the universe has been expanding at an exponential rate with no end in sight. The dark energy has shown to be greater in strength than dark matter and matter. The same can be said regarding the conscience towards sin. It has been exponentially increasing so we don't dare do some things we commonly did before.

Step 1 is not saying eternity leads to sinlessness, but that if you had an eternity, you would have ample time to attain sinlessness. And as Step 1 shows, by interpolating the exponential progression of man's conscience, it is evidentially and experimentally reality. This revelation agrees intuitively.

There is not a requirement for the knowledge of whether the universe is a closed or open system. The 4 Step Perfect Proof is perfect, and thus, does not rely on things unknown, only that which is known to know it is perfect as evidentially predicted.

Chaos to man is merely randomness, but to the laws of cause and effect, it still has its causes and effects. This does not change the principle of Step 1, which indicates there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effect, otherwise you would have attained sinlessness. Whether a system is closed or opened, space is curved or not, makes no difference in our observing our exponential progression of conscience and thus, eradication of sins.

The only required proof is observing the progression of man's conscience in the past 6000 years. If it is exponential, then it is true that eternity is more than enough time to reach sinlessness as we approach infinity. Ergo, there was not an eternity of the past of causes and effects, and man was created. Only Christ fulfills that characteristic when compared to all other gods.

Your problem, I sense by the Holy Spirit, in reading the Proof is not reading the whole Proof. Let it all sink in before overlooking something vital to the Proof. Perhaps you stopped at the first couple of sentences of each Step, for I am merely repeating what the Proof already shows evidentially.

Your next mistake is thinking sinlessness is pertaining to the Cosmos, when I am only focused on man in the Proof attaining perfection by God's grace. As was stated, "Note: this proof is not referring to nature merely reacting, but to man made in God's image, and only those men who are being perfected because they are born-again or saved. We are referring to only man, not animals, and only those men and woman who are saved." Sin first entered with Satan, so God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. When man was created in God's image 6000 years ago, sin soon followed again. This impacted the whole earth as well. But this time, God did not wipe out the whole earth, only locked man out of the garden and flooded the earth locally. You can take this as an exponentially increase in conscience. It is showing God will not flood the whole earth again and wipe out all creatures, but only 1/3 of the people of earth (Rev. 9.18) in the Tribulation. The Cosmos is not God's focus. God's focus is man made in His image to be in the image of His Son so that God can walk with man in the millennial kingdom and be the center of the new city in the new earth after the millennium. Even one day, the universe will dissipate, but man will continue on.

We see in God's design from the moment of God placing man in creation to the time of man's perfection it does not need an eternity. Thus, you can take the starting point of man being placed in creation as approximating the eternity of the past to show that it does not require an eternity to be perfected.

The loins of Adam that you presume Cain's wife came from is not to say a child of Adam, but included in all those in the Adamic race. This is not incest, but rather all human beings on planet earth, no matter what continent they were on were in the Adamic race. As soon as Adam was God-conscious all men and women were God-conscious. Just as when Christ died all men died and covered by His death, though not all receive His atonement. Be careful not to legalize the Scriptures. Cain came directly from the first Adamic man, but his wife may not have. We can't say because the Bible doesn't say, so it should not be an issue. You should take your own advice and not be so dogmatic. Your initial mistake premise is causing you some faulty reasoning.

There is the added point too that if you claim incestuous relations to deny exponential progression of the conscience, then you are arguing against yourself, because today, such practice is rare. This is another example of an exponential progression. You said there is no mutated genes to pass along in incestuous relationships in Adam's time if his own children procreate with each other, but that is not true. If such a thing occurs, it automatically is a defect because any procreation, whether incestuous or not, is being born into sin from the fall of Adam and Eve.

The meat-eating animals and insects stem from creation's fall instigated by Lucifer when he was cast out of 3rd heaven. When God flooded the earth in Gen. 1.2, naturally there was some residual creatures that would make up the food chain. Such sin was not completely eradicated, nor could it have been. Notice day 2 in the restoration of creation was not called a good day because up came some of those demons that were cast into the deep in Gen. 1.2, one tempting Eve. They were disembodied spirits that entered creatures, even man after man's fall. Man was protected in the Garden of Eden until his fall. What do serpents eat? Then, when man sinned even man was not protected from meat-eating creatures because man was cast out of the garden. What Gen. 1.30 is telling us was God's original design creating perfect, and the 6 days of restoration are a summary of bringing about that which was already there. Unfortunately, some negative things persisted, though it should not have been a worry to us if we remained not in sin.

The emphasis in terms of conscience is in percentages. I have already made this point in Step 1 which you overlooked. Simply, percentage-wise murders per capita are decreasing, crime per capita is decreasing. Take for example, form of punishment. Decapitation is not common now, nor is brutal forms of punishment. Incest is less prone. One spouse is the norm. Though things are getting more complicated, there is this overall civility in society that exceeds that of previous generations. The Wild West of gun stand-offs is not something we do today. It is not to say there is still not problems and horrible things that happen still, but on a per capita basis there is an improvement.

In the past the great majority were unsaved, and so it remains today. The ratio of saved to unsaved is much lower than you think then and now. The issues you raise are not a matter of worsening condition, since the things we can do now were not available in the past because the technology was not there. You would be comparing apples to oranges. Today we can still guillotine people to death, but we choose not to. Today, incest is still an option, but per capita is less the case. The fact that things are more complicated and we sin in these new scenarios is not a proper claim on things getting worse. It is merely a reflection of more complicated things. If things were this complicated 3000 years ago, man would sin much worse.

In all forms of science, cause and effect still apply. There is nothing in quantum physics that precedes with an effect without a cause. To think so is just a mistaken assumption, since it can not be shown to be the case. Where is the humility in that? All probabilities have their causes. Just because in a deck of cards there are different outcomes, does not mean there is not the same 52 cards that cause those outcomes. Similarly, there is the same molecular components, but they still must abide in the same laws of cause and effect, just as the 52 cards must abide in the shuffle. Whatever you want to call the energy source! Whether there is a perfect vacuum or not is irrelevant for even the vacuum or non-vacuum has its cause. Whatever we are confused by is no justification for deciding that it is not under some law of operation of cause and effect. How silly. After realizing Step 1 of the Proof, then see that nothing happens all by itself, which is Step 2 in the Proof. Just because you can't discern, does not mean there is not a reason; otherwise, you are pointing to yourself as the center of the universe, that what you know becomes the guiding principle. But this is not reality, for obviously there is things going on you are unaware in their cause and effect.

You'll just have to accept there is some things God does not want you to know. That would seem reasonable, if you were created by God. The Proof places the burden of the proof on you. It is a perfect Proof because it has stated a position that nothing in nature happens all by itself and that nothing is without a cause, which is backed. This is seen in trillions of examples in creation, yet not one example can be given for the idea that something can happen all by itself. Do you see therefore how the odds are against you in claiming that the quantum level can possibly happen all by itself? It is illogical to surmise that since so many examples can be given of all things having a cause and effect, that then something can happen all by itself without any evidence from you.

By your admitting there is not an infinity of the past of cause and effect, then unwittingly, you have accepted Step 1, so precede to Step 2. Notice how you contradict yourself because you said, "There is no particular reason to argue for or against a beginning or no beginning." This contradicts what you said: "The beginning point cannot be defined as back unto infinity because such a point is non-existent." You have agreed with Step 1 because you admit there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effect since you said it is "non-existent". But then you said there is no particular reason to argue for "no beginning". This is doublespeak. You do the very thing you advise against. 1 Tim. 3.8 says be "not doubletongued". Wise men do this to be couth, but it is pretentious.

In your reasoning about finite points, calculus solves your problem. You said "It is logically inconsistent to define a point infinity away because there is no way to establish such a point except perhaps in your mind." It is not necessary to give the exact date of a proposed eternity of the past by atheists and agnostics as they try to disprove God, for it is enough to know that it is not possible because we still sin. A point of eternity in calculus is taken as a spot to work from which approximates infinity. I think you should take a calculus class. If there was an eternity of the past (~) in causes and effects then you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but since you still sin proves that you were created by God, given Christ.

Just because there has always been God is not reason to believe in an infinite past of creation. That is not even logical, for God would have created at some point. Intuitively it makes no sense that there would be an eternity of the past of causes and effects just because God exists. God can exist in the eternity of the past without His creation having yet been created.

Even if there was multiple universe, the law of cause and effect still applies, no matter how confused you are by entropy, open and closed systems, vacuums, collisions, bubbles, black holes, various models, and event horizons.

God alone has made it clear and revealed to us the Proof of His existence. It is the same thing He said in the Bible, look at the mountains and the stars, and ask yourself, did you do that? No. God did it! The 4 Step Proof merely digs a little deeper into that truth in 4 steps:

1) If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but you still sin, so therefore, you had to have been created and there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

2) Nothing in nature happens all by itself. It always has a cause. Thus, God did it. God is uncreated creator.

3) Don't argue against some god, for we are speak of God uncreated. Disproving some god is not the subject of this Proof. None have been able to disprove this Proof of God in the 4 Steps.

4) In the supernatural realm: there can not be an eternity of the past of gods creating gods and supernatural causing supernatural because then you would have had an eternity of the past of cause and effect to attain sinlessness, yet you still sin. Thus, God created according to His divine providence. This brings you back to Step 1, which is God's perfect Proof revealed by the Holy Spirit. And remember, this Proof first does not assume if God exists, but through the evidence it becomes the Perfect Proof for God of the Bible.

In all of this we have seen God has proven Himself to be the cause of creation and reveals it to us intuitively in agreement with the workings of creation evidentially, predictably and intuitively.

DRay563

07-05-2006, 12:37 AM

The 4 Step Proof states clearly that it "does not presume God first, since notice I did not mention God first." So, DRay, you may be overassuming that the Proof would "presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God."
If I misspoke, I apologize. I know the proof does not presume the existence of God. The proof is designed to prove the existence of God. As such, using God as an initial reason or as a premise is faulty logic. This is all I meant.

The same can be said regarding the conscience towards sin. It has been exponentially increasing so we don't dare do some things we commonly did before.
Evolutionists use a similar observation to say that we have evolved a "moral gene" if you will. Remember, however, that sin doesn't just find its roots in immorality in relation to other people. How much sin happens daily when people use the Lord's name in vain, when people worship idols, when people lie, just to discuss three of the commandments?

Your next mistake is thinking sinlessness is pertaining to the Cosmos, when I am only focused on man in the Proof attaining perfection by God's grace. As was stated, "Note: this proof is not referring to nature merely reacting, but to man made in God's image, and only those men who are being perfected because they are born-again or saved. We are referring to only man, not animals, and only those men and woman who are saved."

I am curious, then, how this applies to what I quoted from Step 1 of the proof in my first post? How is it that the proof focuses on man, when the proof clearly states, "If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin)..." (quote taken from the second sentence of the first paragraph of Step 1)? Clearly there is at least some focus on the cosmos. This quote continues to say "...irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity."

Eternity has not been here for man. Man, as you have stated, has been here for 6000 years. In this, I feel you are tying together two things and jointly connecting them to eternity, when only one has the potential establishment of eternity. Let me be more clear:

1) If for eternity things have been evolving, THEN
2) These things cannot include man as man has only been here for 6000 years.
3) The result of having an eternity of things evolving, provided by the proof, is sinlessness.
4) The possibility of evolving in relation to sin, as sin does not have any relation to the cosmos, can only come into play for mankind, THEREFORE
5) The evolution under discussion has only been here for 6000 years, THEREFORE
6) The discussion of the possibility of cause and effect for a past eternity does not apply AS
7) An eternity of things evolving does not pertain to the evolution of man which has only been around for 6000 years, THEREFORE
8) Any said conclusion that eternity cannot have been here due to the observance of sin only maintains that MAN has not been here for eternity, not the cosmos, THEREFORE
9) This proof does not establish that the cosmos cannot have been here for an eternity, but only man.

My 9 step proof here establishes, in a nut shell, that Step 1 wrongly assumes that since man has not been here for eternity (as such an eternity would result in sinlessness, a seemingly ad hoc proposition), the cosmos cannot have been here for an eternity and therefore require an uncaused cause, i.e. God.

Sin first entered with Satan, so God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. When man was created in God's image 6000 years ago, sin soon followed again. This impacted the whole earth as well. But this time, God did not wipe out the whole earth, only locked man out of the garden and flooded the earth locally. You can take this as an exponentially increase in conscience. It is showing God will not flood the whole earth again and wipe out all creatures, but only 1/3 of the people of earth (Rev. 9.18) in the Tribulation. The Cosmos is not God's focus. God's focus is man made in His image to be in the image of His Son so that God can walk with man in the millennial kingdom and be the center of the new city in the new earth after the millennium. Even one day, the universe will dissipate, but man will continue on.

I see a whole lot of stating, and not a whole lot of proving.

Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

In this, we see that God created. There is no indication of Satan or spirits, there is only that which God created and an earth that was formless and empty and water. How is it that from this you draw the conclusions about Satan and a pre-earth?

I am familiar with the passage in Ezekiel 28:11-19 which is probably where you get the idea of Satan being cast down to earth.... but we must also remember that this passage is a prophecy concerning the King of Tyre. While there is clearly metaphorical representation of the King of Tyre to Satan, we should not be terribly dogmatic about drawing conclusions such as a pre-earth that was destroyed by a flood. We know of two things from Genesis. God made, and the earth was covered in water. We have nothing, from this, to say that God made anything other than what is determined in verse 2.

Also, where do you get the idea of a local flood? This is completely unfounded in Scripture; rather, it is an super-imposed idea of the modern world as science says there is no evidence for a global flood.

Genesis 6:13, "So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
Genesis 7:4, "[God speaking] Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
Genesis 7:20-24, "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living things that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living things on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

This doesn't sound local to me. We both established that we should only agree with science when it doesn't conflict with the Word of God. What reason, beyond science saying that there is no evidence for a global flood (which there actually is), is there to say the flood was local?

The loins of Adam that you presume Cain's wife came from is not to say a child of Adam, but included in all those in the Adamic race. This is not incest, but rather all human beings on planet earth, no matter what continent they were on were in the Adamic race. As soon as Adam was God-conscious all men and women were God-conscious. Just as when Christ died all men died and covered by His death, though not all receive His atonement. Be careful not to legalize the Scriptures. Cain came directly from the first Adamic man, but his wife may not have. We can't say because the Bible doesn't say, so it should not be an issue. You should take your own advice and not be so dogmatic. Your initial mistake premise is causing you some faulty reasoning.
You are implying, I think, that God created other humans, and that Cain's wife could have come from these other created humans? I would ask, what reason, other than maybe to lower a few eyebrows over incestual relations, would you have for trying to impress this into the Bible? God gave us a relatively comprehensive account of His creation, and mentioned making one man and one woman. While it's possible He could have created others, there is no reason to believe this unless you are trying to resolve some external issue (such as Cain's wife). As for God-conscious:

Genesis 3:6-7, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened..."

The Bible doesn't specify whether or not it was because they both ate of the tree that both of their eyes were open or if it was because Adam ate of the tree that both of their eyes were open. Therefore, to establish a doctrine such as "all men were God-conscious when Adam was" would be mere opinion. Also, in terms of understanding that having other created people is potentially contradictory to Scripture:

Genesis 3:20, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she woudl become the mother of all the living."

How is that possible, if God created other humans? If Eve were the ultimate mother, the bloodline for all humanity, then God could not have created other humans (unless they were other men, but I'm not sure how much sense that makes).

When God flooded the earth in Gen. 1.2, naturally there was some residual creatures that would make up the food chain. Such sin was not completely eradicated, nor could it have been. Notice day 2 in the restoration of creation was not called a good day because up came some of those demons that were cast into the deep in Gen. 1.2, one tempting Eve. They were disembodied spirits that entered creatures, even man after man's fall. Man was protected in the Garden of Eden until his fall. What do serpents eat? Then, when man sinned even man was not protected from meat-eating creatures because man was cast out of the garden. What Gen. 1.30 is telling us was God's original design creating perfect, and the 6 days of restoration are a summary of bringing about that which was already there. Unfortunately, some negative things persisted, though it should not have been a worry to us if we remained not in sin.
Again, more declaration without Scriptural evidence. What residual creatures? Where is this found in Scripture anywhere? The only possible reason I can think of would be to help reconcile the fossil record, once again, science super-imposing something into Scripture. If there is another reason, one founded in Scripture, please enlighten me!

Yes, there is no recognition in Genesis 1:2 of it being "good." But the light was called good on day one (Genesis 1:4) and when God separated the water and made the sky one day two, it wasn't good either, but there isn't a connection between this and some pre-earth that Satan and the demons inhabited.

The emphasis in terms of conscience is in percentages. I have already made this point in Step 1 which you overlooked. Simply, percentage-wise murders per capita are decreasing, crime per capita is decreasing. Take for example, form of punishment. Decapitation is not common now, nor is brutal forms of punishment. Incest is less prone. One spouse is the norm. Though things are getting more complicated, there is this overall civility in society that exceeds that of previous generations. The Wild West of gun stand-offs is not something we do today. It is not to say there is still not problems and horrible things that happen still, but on a per capita basis there is an improvement.
Where do you get your data? I would be interested to see the comprehensive study that details this? I mean, the Holocaust? 6 million people dead. The current holocaust situation in Africa? Millions dying. Women raped multiple times.

I just started reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller, and one of the things he discusses is that the system established in America is not one to help people become moral; rather, it is a system of checks and balances so that people will not be immoral. Everyone watches everyone so that everyone is good. But this doesn't change the inner nature of humans. We are all broken by our sin nature. If we were evolving towards sinlessness, then we would need the police less and less. The reason for any decline in committed atrocities should be more or less attributed to a better legal system and good law enforcers, not because we are becoming better in and of ourselves.

If, in a certain amount of time, we could become better on our own, then we would have no need for Christ. If time is all that is needed for righteousness to be a natural fruit of man, why did God send His only Begotten to die for us? It doesn't make sense, unless you contend that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was a necessary step in the evolving process. This, however, has nothing to do with man being able to evolve on His own. Instead, we have an indication that God has intervened to help us "evolve" to be better. This, however, requires an intervening act of God, the very God this proof is trying to prove. Since we cannot use God to prove God, we cannot say that Christ came to redeem mankind as part of the evolving process. Since the premise is the decline of immorality in mankind as a whole, then there is no need for a Christ-figure to be a sacrifice as time is the only miracle worker provided by the proof. Given enough time, we will become sinless. Therefore, it doesn't follow that Christ was needed, doesn't follow that God ever needed to die for us. This proof undermines the whole basis of Christianity.

In the past the great majority were unsaved, and so it remains today. The ratio of saved to unsaved is much lower than you think then and now. The issues you raise are not a matter of worsening condition, since the things we can do now were not available in the past because the technology was not there. You would be comparing apples to oranges. Today we can still guillotine people to death, but we choose not to. Today, incest is still an option, but per capita is less the case. The fact that things are more complicated and we sin in these new scenarios is not a proper claim on things getting worse. It is merely a reflection of more complicated things. If things were this complicated 3000 years ago, man would sin much worse.
Does the method really matter, so long as the sin is the same? If you contend that using a guillotine to kill people is a sin, it is not the tool (the guillotine) but the act itself (capital punishment). I myself do not have a formulated opinion about capital punishment, as I haven't sat down and really thought about it a whole lot. Maybe I should.... Anyway, the point is, technology just improves methods of sinning or not sinning; it does nothing to change the nature of the sin. Sin is the heart, embodied by the action, enhanced by the tools. If a person murders with a gun as opposed to a stone carved spear, what's the difference? It's still murder. If a man looks at pornography and lusts (technology has made this sin much more available.... and just so you know, pornography being one of the top industries in the world doesn't lend itself to less immorality) or watches a woman walk by and lusts, what's the difference?

The difference, you might say, is that if we had given a man 3000 years ago the button to launch an atom bomb, he'd do so without hesitation. Maybe. Maybe not. It's pure speculation to say so. If one were to explain the consequences of firing the atom bomb, well known consequences today, he might not do it.

In fact, I think that's the key. The accumulation of the knowledge of consequences to sin has had an overall impact on the observable quantity of sin. I include the word "observable" because, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When men would steal in broad daylight, it was not because stealing was more practiced, it was because the chances of getting caught were much less. As the consequences are more severe (that is, if we took France's road and chopped off a man's hand after he stole), we'd see a much sharper decline in thievery. This merely has to do with a knowledge of consequence, not with the actual lack of intent.

I pose you a question. If there were no government, no laws, no officers, only anarchy was the master of men in America.... what do you think the country would be like? Orderly or chaotic?

In all forms of science, cause and effect still apply. There is nothing in quantum physics that precedes with an effect without a cause. To think so is just a mistaken assumption, since it can not be shown to be the case. Where is the humility in that? All probabilities have their causes. Just because in a deck of cards there are different outcomes, does not mean there is not the same 52 cards that cause those outcomes. Similarly, there is the same molecular components, but they still must abide in the same laws of cause and effect, just as the 52 cards must abide in the shuffle.
I think you are missing the point. While I understand your point, given the deck of cards, it doesn't follow as a good analogy for the quantum level. Let me give you an example, seen from watching Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" videos. A man walks into a quantum bar and orders a blue drink. The bartender says "I'll try." She comes back with a red one. Now, another copy of the same man walks up, and another, and another, until 9 copies of the same person all reach for the same glass simultaneously. They each pull out a different color drink (with a few duplications, like two of them had orange drinks), even though the glass on the table had a red drink in it. This is a good example of the nature of quantum physics.

In the deck of cards, there are forces that establish which cards will be where. These forces are gravity, shuffling, the stickiness of the cards, among many other factors, and the probability of where cards will be are firmly based in this understanding. As such, if we were to verify every force and every detail that went into dealing the cards, we could say with 100% certainty which cards would be where. In quantum physics, in knowing (at least, within the realm of current scientific thought) every force and every detail that go into determining quantum behavior, we are still only left with probability. This also goes hand in hand with another aspect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that we cannot know both the location and speed of subatomic particles. It is this uncertainty that rules quantum physics, and as such, does not play into cause and effect.

Granted, quantum physics does not state (to my current knowledge) that an effect comes prior to a cause. Rather, it states that there are things that happen without cause (an important element of cause and effect and this proof), such as the nature of determining which of the possible choices a particle will "choose" given a certain set of conditions.

I am being particularly dogmatic about this point because cause and effect is a phenomena that is established within the scientific community. The name "cause and effect" has certain scientific understandings that you are, knowingly or unknowingly, appealing to in your proof. This appelation is caused merely by using the name "cause and effect," as it has certain connotation that the reader will associate with it. I am merely stating that these specific connotations do not hold up within the scientific community. Since the proof is undergirded with this scientific term, it must bow to the scientific understanding of the term, both where it is upheld and where it is shot down.

You'll just have to accept there is some things God does not want you to know. That would seem reasonable, if you were created by God. The Proof places the burden of the proof on you. It is a perfect Proof because it has stated a position that nothing in nature happens all by itself and that nothing is without a cause, which is backed. This is seen in trillions of examples in creation, yet not one example can be given for the idea that something can happen all by itself. Do you see therefore how the odds are against you in claiming that the quantum level can possibly happen all by itself? It is illogical to surmise that since so many examples can be given of all things having a cause and effect, that then something can happen all by itself without any evidence from you.
Actually, seeing as science shows things without causes (of which I have delineated), there are in fact more examples (just merely unobservable ones to the naked eye) of things that are uncaused than there are caused. This is easily understood as things that are observable are made up of trillions of tiny particles unseen, atoms. These tiny particles are then made up even smaller particles, quantum particles, and these quantum particles outnumber the atomic particles. Since the quantum particles abide by quantum rules, and therefore cause and effect doesn't apply, and the atomic particles follow Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, where cause and effect does apply, we can reasonably and safely say that there are more cases of a lack of cause and effect than cause and effect. Since the burden of proof was placed on me based on the overwhelming cause and effect evidence, it is now placed on you to prove the legitimacy of cause and effect as there is overwhelming evidence against it.

Notice how you contradict yourself because you said, "There is no particular reason to argue for or against a beginning or no beginning." This contradicts what you said: "The beginning point cannot be defined as back unto infinity because such a point is non-existent." You have agreed with Step 1 because you admit there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effect since you said it is "non-existent". But then you said there is no particular reason to argue for "no beginning". This is doublespeak. You do the very thing you advise against. 1 Tim. 3.8 says be "not doubletongued". Wise men do this to be couth, but it is pretentious.
I am not being pretentious, nor am I being doubletongued. If you feel I am, I apologize, for this is not my intention nor my goal. As I established from the beginning, I am merely seeking truth, not personal glory. Any self-contradiction is due to my imperfect nature, and I will gladly and willingly recognize such self-contradictions and flaws within my reasoning when pointed out at me.

What I am saying is that a beginning to the Universe is in accordance with the kalam argument, such that "everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the Universe had a beginning; therefore, the Universe had a cause." However, as Step 1 doesn't seem to follow (as I attempted to prove earlier in this post), then Step 2 necessarily becomes a natural extrapolation of personal opinion. If Step 1 holds, then Step 2 becomes a natural following, to this I will agree. But, since I don't believe Step 1 holds sufficiently, Step 2 doesn't hold either.

In your reasoning about finite points, calculus solves your problem. You said "It is logically inconsistent to define a point infinity away because there is no way to establish such a point except perhaps in your mind." It is not necessary to give the exact date of a proposed eternity of the past by atheists and agnostics as they try to disprove God, for it is enough to know that it is not possible because we still sin. A point of eternity in calculus is taken as a spot to work from which approximates infinity. I think you should take a calculus class. If there was an eternity of the past (~) in causes and effects then you would have had an eternity to be perfected, but since you still sin proves that you were created by God, given Christ.
I have taken 3 years of calculus, and 3 years of applying this calculus (although, two years of calculus and two years of application overlap, so really, only four years). I feel that I understand quite well the concept of infinity. Let's take an example:

f(x) = 1/(x-1)

The graph of this function would go to positive and negative infinity as you approach the point x = 1. At the point x = 1, however, would be an undefined y-coordinate. Why? Because infinity cannot be defined as a point. Try dividing 1 by 0 in your calculator. It gives you an error, because this is an undefined point. This is where the difference between calculus and reality comes into play. Calculus recognizes infinity as "finished sets," such that it sums up the infinite into the finite. Zeno's paradox is a classic example. If you travel half the distance every time, you can never reach a destination. The importance that calculus allows us to realize is that the summation of the infinitely smaller numbers results in a finite number, the actual distance you travel.

An important aspect of calculus, however, that many people lose, is the difference between a calculus infinity and a real infinity, a calculus zero and a real zero. A calculus zero is as close as you can possibly come to zero without it actually being zero. A real zero is just that: zero. If you divide a number by a calculus zero, you get infinity. If you divide a number by a real zero, you get undefined. There is a very real and important difference in this!

A point of eternity taken as infinity from which we can measure things does not apply to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is a real infinity, not a calculus infinity. It doesn't follow to assume that if we use the calculus infinity method to solve the real infinity, we should get the same result.

Take for example, when solving a limit where you have the condition of zero divided by zero, you use L'Hopital's Rule to solve it until you get an answer. However, if ever have a math problem with zero divided by zero, something is seriously wrong. It is an impossibility, a mathematical flaw, not a calculus wonder! The difference is that the "zero over zero" condition for calculus is in fact a limit as something approaches zero, not an actual "zero over zero" situation.

All of this to say, we cannot use calculus methods to solve for a real infinity, as calculus is based on limits and not actualities. The infinite regress is not the limit as it approaches infinity, but actually infinity. The two should not ever be confused.

Just because there has always been God is not reason to believe in an infinite past of creation. That is not even logical, for God would have created at some point. Intuitively it makes no sense that there would be an eternity of the past of causes and effects just because God exists. God can exist in the eternity of the past without His creation having yet been created.
I'm sorry if I was unclear on what I was saying. Let me restate what I meant, as it seems I was unclear.

If you believe God has always existed, then you believe in an infinite regress. Those who believe in an infinite Universe also believe in an infinite regress. Therefore, it is illogical to argue against an infinite regress (I included this only because many argue against the infinite regress, William Lane Craig being one of those [see his argument about Hilbert's Hotel], and I thought you might do so also). I believe that God created and that the Universe is not in a state of infinite regress. However, it does not follow that the Universe could not have been in an infinite regress as a brute fact anymore than God existing as a brute fact, which is usually what these types of arguments narrow down to.

If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin)... (quote taken from the second sentence of the first paragraph of Step 1)

Another argument against this proof that came to mind is the very wording of the proof itself. In stating that to be perfect is to be without sin, there is a recognition of sin and therefore a recognition of God. Sin has a very religious connotation, and in fact, its definition is rooted in disobedience to God. You cannot have sin if there is no God, because you cannot disobey that which isn't. Therefore, in defining perfection, and therefore defining the ability to be perfect, you have established the concept of God. Since the proof is designed to prove God, you cannot use God as a premise to prove God. As such, the proof does not hold up.

In Christ,
Daniel

Churchwork

07-05-2006, 05:07 PM

DRay,

Step 1

It doesn't help your case to disprove the Proof by saying what the Proof already agrees to such as your admitting the Proof doesn't claim God first before proving God's existence.

We see an exponential improvement in conscience in man by citing many examples of things we just don't do anymore. This is how God designed us: to move forward not backward. That's why we don't do many horrible things we use to do. Evolutionists see it as a moral gene, so therefore, they should agree that they were created by God, otherwise they would be contradicting themselves. Evolutionism is not wrong, since the body is formed from dust. Evolution is just limited in its scope since it deals with the physical since the Amoeba. It doesn't explain that which precedes the biological.

Just because man is in the cosmos does not mean it is about the cosmos, for it is centered on man. The cosmos is merely the conduit. God's point of focus is man made in His image, not the cosmos. The point of the cosmos is that it containing man, if it had been eternally existing in the past would mean also man had an eternity to be perfected within the cosmos when we approximate to eternity of the past. But since man still sins, therefore, you know you were created and there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effect. Very simple truth.

Your continual problem is not understanding calculus. Just because man was made in God's image 6000 years ago, does not discount the process by which God went through to bring man to that point. Therefore, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect it is irrelevant when man started in the evolving chain, for wherever man starts, it is accounted as being in the eternity of the past if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. But since man still sins, we know that is not the case and man was created. Step 1 remains true.

Evolution, the dust in Gen. 2.7, did not begin 6000 years ago, for man's body was being formed biologically since the Amoeba.

Creation, Desolation and Restoration

Gen. 1.2 reads "And the earth became waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The word "became" is also used in 2.7 and 19.26, so it should be used in verse 2 also. In your creation, your god creates waste and desolate. In God's perfect creating, He creates perfectly in verse 1. Events then follow such as Lucifer's fall from 3rd heaven, fallen angels and the demons, causing God to make desolate in verse 2. He deals with this problem accordingly, but no such dealing is availed to your belief system to account for the tempter in the serpent.

The details of Ez. 28.11-19 are laid out. The first part (verses 1-10) address the Prince of Tyre. The second part (verses 11-19)-which is a lamentation against the King of Tyre-points to the future Antichrist. Historicalists are against this teaching, because they are historicalists; so shall they be deceived by the coming Antichrist. I can give you much aspect and understanding of this when you are ready to hear. Suffice it to say, Satan is still the god of this world and he holds back the Antichrist until he has no choice but to release him.

No doubt the Great Accuser will accuse of being dogmatic when it is pointed out there were the events of the fallen archangel Lucifer between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2, long before 6000 years ago.

You're contradicting your own position in these words of yours: "Also, where do you get the idea of a local flood? This is completely unfounded in Scripture; rather, it is an super-imposed idea of the modern world as science says there is no evidence for a global flood." You said "there is no evidence for a global flood" and "where do you get the idea of a local flood." Why contend for no global flood when I have said there is a local flood? That is nonsensical.

Noah did not know the world was round. His world was the world locally. So the verses pertaining to his experience of the flood are indeed local. Learn to put yourself in the shoes of the person in the day they were living. That's the selfless thing to do. Legalisms are for dullards. Scientific evidence has shown that part of the land gave way around the sea, flooding the whole area. The exact spot where scientists suspect the land giving way is known and also evidence of artifacts in the sea bed are also found. Those artifacts are particular to that time period.

This is a nonsensical statement: "You are implying, I think, that God created other humans". There are not other human beings. There is only one kind of human being: human being.

As we have discussed this I have found you to be wrong on everything we talk about. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me so much error in you, that I will know you by your fruit. Based on our private talks and in the open forum, the Holy Spirit has revealed you are not a Christian. And, you will not change your view.

All Men and Women are in Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve are the first God-conscious beings. As soon as they became the first all were in Adam, that is to say, all the dust formed to create the bodies, caused all mankind that flows from Adam. No matter what continent you are on, you have no excuse. All were in Adam: human beings. This happened about 6000 years ago. The number of souls exceeds that of the specific family line of Adam and Eve. Adam is spoken of in particular because from Adam to Christ is 76 generations in this lineage. We know 6000 years ago there were men on all continents. Therefore, your theory is disproven. For example, study the Egyptians to know there were cities back to of 10,000 BC, except that they did not have God-consciousness; thus, they would cease to exist. It was only until 4000 BC that man was created in His image as the Bible says so which science can agree to.

Adam and Eve were not God-conscious when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You misread me in claiming I said that. When Adam and Eve were created in God's image they had God-consciousness. Do you see the difference?

Eve is the mother of all creation since she is the first God-conscious woman and all men and women are in her as all mankind is of the Adamic race. Your problem is you only see the physical legalistically, so you think all must physically be born of Eve by bloodline. But it is true that there were humans (not other humans since there is only one kind of human made in God's image) on other continents so that when we say all were in Eve, we do not mean they were born physically from Eve's womb, but spiritually speaking, all human beings flow from the Eve.

Day 2 Was Not A Good Day

What residual creatures? When you flood a planet or even take away its atmosphere (Gen. 1.2) it is possible for some residual creatures to remain living. It is from these creatures that the long period of restoration is summed up in the 6 literal summary days. When the firmaments were split to restore creation, day 2 was not a good day like the other days because up came some of those demons. You asked for proof, this is it. The 6 days are not "created" but the Hebrew word is "restored". The purpose of the Bible is not to give you a detailed scientific record. If you want to read between the lines, you will have to abide in these facts which agree with these verses and words the Bible employs.

Day 2 follows Day 1. Day 1 follows the making desolate in Gen. 1.2, since the days are days of restoration. You are utterly confused, for you wrote, "there is no recognition in Genesis 1:2 of it being good." I did not say Gen. 1.2 is good, for I was talking about Day 2 not being a good day, because up came some of those demons God cast into the deep in Gen. 1.2. If you would like to study about Earth's earliest ages, read these two links (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mystery.htm). For example, many including C. I. Scofield believe that Jeremiah 4.23-26 refers to the condition of waste and void cited in Gen. 1.2. Read those two links to understand the details of this.

Do accept your bad logic in knowing Lucifer was cast out of 3rd heaven, then not accounting for the time period from then to when one of his demons entered the serpent around 6000 years ago to tempt Eve. This creates a big hole in your theology.

Raw Numbers are Not the Key

You only see the raw horrific numbers, but on a per capita basis the numbers are better today than before. Whole nations would be wiped off the face of the earth in previous generations. Many children would not make it to the age of 5 percentage-wise, and no less for the reason of child-sacrifices. Though in Islam they still perform this ritual, teaching their children to blow themselves up. Israel was suppose to wipe out such evil nations in Canaan that did this, but Israel failed, and so such child sacrifices remain today.

The number of police per capita is less today. A much greater percentage thousands of years ago were devoted to men in arms. It is quite narrow-minded to overlook this fact. You are only focused on the now, and not making comparisons.

Though common grace is showing us improvements, this is not to mean that Christ is not needed for redemption. The good self can never save a soul, and still needs the blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins. This is why many souls are still going to go to hell. Though they appear to have received some common grace improvements, even so, they still need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This is most evident in the fact that the Great Tribulation is still ahead of us (still hostility), there will still be a faction of those who will take the mark of the beast. The good nations will be transferred into the millennial kingdom, yet they must believe still individually. That's why I say that when I speak of sinlessness exponential improvements unto perfection, I am talking only about the saved specifically. Whereas, the unsaved will be forced into hell because they did not want to repent of their sins. They may have have had some refinement by God's common grace, but they remain unregenerate, eternally separated from God. God intervenes, even in common grace.

This is entirely illogical: "Since we cannot use God to prove God, we cannot say that Christ came to redeem mankind as part of the evolving process." It is not that we can't use God to prove God, but that for the purposes of this 4 Step Proof, God has afforded us a proof that does not need Christ first to be mentioned to hold its own in proving God. We certainly can say that Christ came to redeem mankind. God gives us this stand alone proof. Thus, no man has any excuses.

Ultimately, in this section, you are confusing regeneration and common grace. No matter how refined an unsaved person is, he will never be saved. He still needs Christ on the cross.

Whether it is the weapon that changes that causes the sin or not, the fact remains on a per capita basis the death penalty is less. There would be a 1000 women in the temple giving sexual worship. Percentage wise this is far worse than all the pornography on the internet and brothels in the world today. Again, all this shows, is an exponential improvement. There were entire cities that were homosexual in the OT, but today it is much less the case.

Would man push the button to create a nuclear explosion 3000 years ago if he had the technology. You bet he would. If for no other reason his conscience is not up to speed with knowledge. Thus his conscience is not nearly as strong as it is today, even if only a conscience that is affected by common grace and not actual regeneration of the spirit. Everyone knows the consequences of an Atomic bomb today, so don't make excuses for people by saying "If one were to explain the consequences of firing the atom bomb, well known consequences today, he might not do it." Indeed, man has not done it yet today which is a testament to the exponential improvement of conscience generally. If a man could throw his own child into the mouth of a fiery Moloch god, surely, blowing up a city is on his list of things to do.

I must admit I find your ideas very dull, and boring to talk to, since you are always wrong in your conscience and self. Whether I am casting pearls before the swine or what is holy unto dogs, it makes no difference. You are not ready for this conversation.

The policing of a state, or lack the need of, is a reflecting on the improving conscience of a society. In all of what has been said we continue to see how Step 1 remains true: If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect, then you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet you still sin. Ergo, you were created by God, given Christ. The exponential progression of conscience, in believers unto regeneration, and non-believers unto hell remains an axiom we can prove continually. The difference being, non-believers never accept God's atoning sacrifice.

Physics Agrees with Determinism

In your drink analogy, it fails in that you confuse the scenario by that amount of your own lack of understanding of the laws of cause and effect in play. Just as the force behind the deck of cards pervades, so are laws also behind the working of quantum physics which you can't perceive. Just because you can't perceive them does not mean they don't exist, for we see the consequences of them. Humility dictates that it is so. The outcome is not "firmly based in this understanding" as you say. Your understanding is irrelevant. Whether you understand or not, does not change the fact the laws of cause and effect are still prevalent and in play. Just because men did not know there were other continents, thus not included in the flood, does not mean they didn't exist. When man discovered the continents and understood of their existence, does not mean they all of a sudden came into being.

Your logic is undesirable in trying to distinguish quantum mechanics from deck of cards. You said "in knowing (at least, within the realm of current scientific thought) every force and every detail that go into determining quantum behavior, we are still only left with probability." It is the same with a deck of cards, whether we know all the elements involved or not. The reason men use quantum mechanics as an example, in their hostility towards God, is because it is so utterly complicated, that they can input their own crazy ideas, but your ideas fail you. You said, "It is this uncertainty that rules quantum physics, and as such, does not play into cause and effect." This is entirely illogical. Just because there is uncertainty is no grounds to saw there is no law behind it of cause and effect. Just as in a deck of cards, we don't know the next card that will come out of the deck, yet the law still exists in the probabilities of it. If an ace is missing, there is just that amount less chance of an ace appearing. Quantum mechanics is just way more complicated, but holds to the same principle of one thing causing another.

The reason I know you are not a Christian is because you are contending for the idea that something is without a cause and happens all by itself. This is against the Word of God.

Your version of quantum physics states, "that there are things that happen without cause (an important element of cause and effect and this proof), such as the nature of determining which of the possible choices a particle will choose given a certain set of conditions." Quantum physics does not state this. Though some may say this is what quantum physics states, it is not proven, and there is no reason for such an assertion, since nothing in nature exhibits this character. All the odds are against you since more than a trillion things have seen to have a cause, yet nothing is seen to be without a cause. Just because you can't understand the complexity does not mean you can arbitrarily demand causelessness. That's dumb, without humility and ultimately hostile to God.

Cause and effect hold up within the scientific community (in all of nature seen), and I am not referring to pseudo-science that you are contending for where you claim like an atheist and agnostic things happen all by themselves just because they are too proud to accept there is something they don't know as being the cause. I agree with you when you say you are dogmatic, except that you are dogmatically wrong in contending for something so dogmatically that you can't show, or even come close to doing so.

Herein is your pride and what keeps you eternally separated from God: "Actually, seeing as science shows things without causes (of which I have delineated)". Science never showed that things in creation happen all by themselves. Nor did you delineate it. I praise God that self-declarations from selfish souls is nothing but independency from God. Your open theism (claiming God is without infinite foreknowledge) and calvinist tendencies (claiming God is without foreknowledge of our free-choice) and puff the magic dragon teachings (pridefully claiming things happen all by themselves without evidence) is why you are going to hell. These are the tools you employ to separate yourself from God. And they are a symptom of your unregenerated spirit. They are the false fruit by which you are known.

When I speak of causes in nature it includes unseen and seen causes, unseen being interpolated and seen being visible by the eye, which they both observe laws. In all instances everything has a cause. The only thing that does not have a cause would be the causeless cause, God. He is proven by the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself. Ergo, God did it. And the exponential progression of conscience means there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, since it would not need to take an eternity to reach sinlessness perfection in the saved.

This does not follow, "Since the quantum particles abide by quantum rules, and therefore cause and effect doesn't apply, and the atomic particles follow Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, where cause and effect does apply, we can reasonably and safely say that there are more cases of a lack of cause and effect than cause and effect." The problem with this statement is the false statement that quantum mechanics do not have causes and effects. That type of pseudo-science gets you nowhere. Nothing in quantum physics causes you to think something happens all by itself. You just lack the understanding to see that small in nature. It holds that since Newtonian and Einsteinian physics abide in laws of cause and effect, then it would be true of Quantum physics. If all we have ever seen in human history agrees, then there is no reason to think otherwise.

Understand why you believe in puff the magic dragon. It is because in your spirit is the evil spirit who teaches you this and you accept it to be so deceived. You have yet to receive the Holy Spirit to oust the evil spirit in your spirit.

Your idea is wrong: "Since the burden of proof was placed on me based on the overwhelming cause and effect evidence, it is now placed on you to prove the legitimacy of cause and effect as there is overwhelming evidence against it." Since there is no evidence yet against causeless effects, the burden of proof still falls on you.

From the beginning you have established your desire for personal glory as evident by the constant error, paragraph after paragraph. These are not complicated things in their basic understanding, yet you say "As I established from the beginning, I am merely seeking truth, not personal glory." You are seeking personal glory, for such glory stems in so much error. You can not be so consistently wrong on every point if you were not seeking personal glory. Furthermore, we have seen in the unsaved, self-proclamations such as "Any self-contradiction is due to my imperfect nature, and I will gladly and willingly recognize such self-contradictions and flaws within my reasoning when pointed out at me." Yet after it was shown you your error, still you remained in that error, repeating it, saying it yet needs to be shown to you. What you claim is vastly different from actuality.

Notice how you contradict yourself because you said, "There is no particular reason to argue for or against a beginning or no beginning." This contradicts what you said: "The beginning point cannot be defined as back unto infinity because such a point is non-existent." You have agreed with Step 1 because you admit there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effect since you said it is "non-existent". But then you said there is no particular reason to argue for "no beginning". This is doublespeak. You do the very thing you advise against. 1 Tim. 3.8 says be "not doubletongued". Wise men do this to be couth, but it is pretentious.

And so you repeat your error: "However, as Step 1 doesn't seem to follow (as I attempted to prove earlier in this post), then Step 2 necessarily becomes a natural extrapolation of personal opinion. If Step 1 holds, then Step 2 becomes a natural following, to this I will agree. But, since I don't believe Step 1 holds sufficiently, Step 2 doesn't hold either."

Since Step 1 does hold, and you failed to show otherwise, then Step 2 naturally follows. Step 1 remains so powerfully solid, ultimately given by God: If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effect (and we know all things abide in law of cause and effect, nothing to the contrary), then you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin if you were saved. But, even, it applies generally in common grace to all people, as we have gone over numerous examples of improvements of conscience on a per capita basis. To date, you could find no problem with this observation and sound reasoning.

The reason you still have issue even though you have no valid reason must be because you are unsaved. This is your false fruit which I know you by. The unsaved man makes a declaration without substance because self is his center apart from God. Hell is your future. Even now you have that foretaste in what the Bible describes as the tares who try to look like the wheat by their own strength, not relying on God's Spirit and Word.

Calculus - Approximating Infinity - Agrees with Step 1

What I find always intriguing is it doesn't matter the level of a man's knowledge, he is still unsaved. You can even be the leading scientist in an area, and still be unsaved.

For example, you said of yourself, "I have taken 3 years of calculus, and 3 years of applying this calculus." Yet, you still contend against a point in the past which we can equate as approximating infinity for the purposes of Step 1 to show that it is not possible, because we still sin. Do you see how the mind, full of knowledge, can still be unrenewed?

The application of approximating infinity in calculus for Step 1 is simply to say that it is unnecessary to know specific details of when and how, but merely accept that an infinity, if it had being going on for infinity, renders certain conclusions given what we know and see today in relation to sin. Since we see an exponential progression of conscience today compared through the past 6000 years, we know that according to exponential progressions the point of approximating infinity of the past demands that we would be without sin by now. Calculus says that an approximating of infinity is equal to infinity in practice.

In your commentary on calculus you are letting things distract you from the point of what is pertinent to the Proof. You should go back to the roots of basic calculus (which I keep repeating), because you are confusing yourself and come across as someone who does not even know basic calculus, and thus will try to bog himself in inapplicable details to the relevant aspects of calculus for this Proof in its simplicity. Do you see how your mind is unrenewed, because your spirit is not regenerated?

The reason I am deleting your account is because you add nothing, and continue to rationalize false teachings (fully detailed here), and will continue to do so, even unto hell. Since this site is for the Work for the Church, and not to discuss things that are obviously wrong, and you have not presented any new contentions to the 4 Step Proof, which you are warned against, this is warrant to expel you. Do you not realize what you are arguing for has already been discussed and you present no new information in your contentions?

This is without distinction: "If you believe God has always existed, then you believe in an infinite regress. Those who believe in an infinite Universe also believe in an infinite regress." Just because God existed for eternity does not mean creation existed for eternity in the past. The infinite regress is different. The former is God's eternal life, the latter is God's creation. The latter are proven false because Step 1 proves them wrong.

Desperation of an Unsaved Man

Thus it does not follow what you believe when you say: "Therefore, it is illogical to argue against an infinite regress (I included this only because many argue against the infinite regress, William Lane Craig being one of those [see his argument about Hilbert's Hotel], and I thought you might do so also)."

Disproving an infinite regress of creation proves God created, since there is no other option. William Lane Craig is a born-again believer. He believes there is not an eternity of the past of creation, so this proves God did it. Craig is a Christian and you are not a Christian. Do you see how that works? Praise the Lord for this discernment!

In your profile you note several things: 1) you reject God foreknows our free-choice so you believe in an impotent god; 2) you reject that between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2 there is the happenings of Lucifer, fallen angels and the demons, rejecting God's Word; and 3) say you are not sure about a great many things in the questions at registration to this forum. I just wanted to record this here since your account is being deleted. Your being not sure is not against you, but definitely indications of your lack of spirituality.

Since you state, "I believe that God created and that the Universe is not in a state of infinite regress. However, it does not follow that the Universe could not have been in an infinite regress as a brute fact anymore than God existing as a brute fact, which is usually what these types of arguments narrow down to," you are agreeing with Step 1 (not an infinite regress as proven), but then turn around in the next sentence and say just the opposite (could have been in an infinite regress). I am left with just the thought, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Certainly God's existence is not a brute fact, but certainly an obvious fact, just as there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect, which is an obvious fact, otherwise you would be without sin.

Sensitively the Holy Spirit is showing me that you are desperately trying to find flaw in the 4 Step Proof, and in so doing, making horrible mistakes because of your obsession with the task-this is your brute effort. The task has been presented not to convince you that it can be disproven, but to show you that you can't disprove the 4 Step Proof; and certainly, error prone ideas you put forth, expose you through and through. How soon you forget Rom. 1.20 which the 4 Step Proof corroborates.

Don't be a Dullard

You have nothing but error in your words DRay: "Another argument against this proof that came to mind is the very wording of the proof itself. In stating that to be perfect is to be without sin, there is a recognition of sin and therefore a recognition of God."

The proof already discloses that recognition of sin is not recognition of God but observed in nature without mention of God, even though of course, sin is something God is ardently against. As the Proof says: "And, since we know we jail people for crimes, we know there is this sin that has consequence, and the mention of it does not presume God first, since notice I did not mention God first. This throws a wrench in lots of atheists'/agnostics' ideology." Why overlook this fact? It shows you did not really read the Proof.

Though it is true sin is mentioned in religion, religion itself is particular to everyone, since religion is worship of something, anything. Whatever a person places first in their lives is what they worship. It is their religion, even that which is above God.

This is a false statement: "You cannot have sin if there is no God, because you cannot disobey that which isn't." You can sin against man, man is. So we put people in jail.

This statement is false: "Therefore, in defining perfection, and therefore defining the ability to be perfect, you have established the concept of God." Since the matter of sin can be discussed at least on some level without mention of God, as we have seen, then it does not demand the presentation of God first, even though certainly God is applying the redemptive design to the exponential removal of sin in the saved. Initial mistake premises lead to false conclusions.

Last error noted: "Since the proof is designed to prove God, you cannot use God as a premise to prove God. As such, the proof does not hold up." Since the 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) does not use God as a premise to prove God, then the Proof remains solid.

Not everyone who says they are saved is saved. At least 99% of open theists are unsaved. We shall know them by their fruit.

Praise the Lord for this discernment!
In Christ,
Churchwork

Churchwork

11-24-2006, 02:07 PM

4 Steps to Proving God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)

I read multiple articles at a site called fstdt, a critique by Juliet (and someone who calls themselves Yahweh inappropriately) of the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible. It is a lengthy response to the 4 Step Proof, and I was praying how could I help them see the forest through the trees? So I sent them this message.

Simplicity is usually the key and as Gary Habermas says, use the minimal facts approach, that is, focus on the aspects that are central to your proof and put everything else aside for the time being, which you can come back to later. The problem with Juliet is she has gotten so far off the proof itself. She needs to come back to it, otherwise she would be guilty of trying to be couth, cunning, and attempting misdirection like a magician or charlatan selling snake oil. So let me bring you back and let you deal specifically with the proof itself instead of going on a tangent. Don't let Satan steer you away from the proof itself.

Step 1 is vital. It says, if anyone contends for an eternity of the past of cause and effects (and yes many have proposed this), then you would have had an eternity to be perfected (read the rest of the paragraph for why this is necessarily going to happen if there was an eternity of the past). However, since you still sin, you know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Taking a sample of these past 6000 years in observing, quantifiably, the exponential progression of our conscience, you know it won't take another 6000 years to reach God's definition of sinlessness in the saved. It is not a valid excuse to say we are defining sin by God's terms. All you need realize is we do put people in jail with no mention of God because they sin. For our purposes all we need see is that sinlessness is at a bare minimum not making damaging mistakes such as mistreating another person or being unhealthy to yourself. Today, pagan nations don't usually throw their children into the fiery mouth of Molech. However, people do perform abortions and there are Islamic suicide bombers taught at the youngest of ages to be suicide mass-murders. Nonetheless, it is an exponential improvement in conscience since we would never commit to the actual throwing of the child into the idol of Molech's fiery mouth directly. Science and technology are NOT determinants of exponential improvements in conscience. Previously, it was common practice to marry multiple spouses. Today, this is frowned upon. Previously, it was common practice for two men to stand at a distance face to face in a gunslinging shootout. This would never be allowed today. Previously, men would be thrown into a stadium to be mauled by animals and gladiators would fight to the death. This is no longer conscionable. You could keep citing example after example.

Second step: someone says, ok fine, but what if the universe started all by itself at some point? Look at the cosmos and know it is very complicated. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect. Therefore, since nothing, in more than a trillion examples, ever proves something happens without a cause, we can with the greatest of probabilities conclude everything has a cause. Since everything has a cause that is in known existence, then logic states that which is uncreated must have created. This is step 2 in the proof.

Step 3, which is misrepresented, does not say what Juliet says it said. Since the person, who can not overturn step 1 or 2, then tries to argue for something else, they try to argue against the attributes of some god, which is not the attributes of God of the Bible. Do you see how this is disingenuous? As the minimal facts approach is concerned, this proof does not care about other gods, but is merely proving God of the Bible, so if you want to put forth an argument, address it against God of the Bible and not trying to dispute some god.

Once the person appreciates step 3, they provide their one last stand at the ok corral-Step 4. They say, well why can't there be gods created gods for an eternity of the past so that your God is created also? This is just an offshoot of step 1, but instead of dealing with things in nature, it proposes gods created gods in the supernatural to explain our existence. This violates the principle proven in step 1 which say if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, whomever the constituents are, you still would have had an eternity to be perfected due to our observation today of the exponential progression cited. Try yourself to think of some more examples of exponential progression of our conscience in the saved. Note the unsaved do not want to change so that is why hell is created. In eternity hell takes care of them, and Juliet.

Do you see how the proof has remained the same proof since the beginning: not the beginning of my mentioning it, but with Moses recording it on papyrus. Ultimately the first person this knowledge was acquired by would be Adam since Adam was the first man made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness. We are all given the ability to know this, which is why even in a simpler form, it is known by just looking up at the stars and the sky to know that this is vastly intelligently designed. Do you see how the proof proves itself, does not make any claims on the inspiration of the Bible, but merely deals with the minimal facts approach? It focuses just on the 4 points. Now knowing this is true, that the uncreated created whom we can call God-the uncreated God would be God of the Bible since God is righteous, holy, pure and true. Such God would necessitate His mercy and that mercy is revealed when Jesus entered into creation to die on the cross for your sins to give you eternal life if you were willing to receive it. None compare to the love of Christ, He said He is God and proved it, fulfilling 62 prophecies (probabilities less than 1 in a trillion for any mortal man to get lucky), surrounding 40 writers over 1500 years, in a historical-religio context, showing God's redemptive design, and the apostles died for testifying to His resurrection and ascension. The resurrection of Christ is unique and best testified. No person is more well documented in antiquity. There are 42 writers, both Christian and non-Christian speaking of Jesus in the first 150 years of his death. This far outweighs the number of writers about the Emperor of Rome who died 11 years after Jesus died by a margin of 4 to 1. Skeptics have no considerable valid explanation against Jesus being God.

Juliet

11-25-2006, 04:54 PM

Churchwork,

I appreciate your invitation to respond to your post. Some of things that will follow will, without a doubt, be extremely offensive to you. I'm going to be upfront: I have a tendency to come off as extremely elitist and condescending, and I have a tendency to talk down to other people (usually for good reasons).

Let me also state upfront that I've read a lot of proofs for God, and yours, no matter how much effort you put into it, is really the worst one I've ever read. I'm not sure if you already know this or not, but basically you're reiterating a very ancient argument for god called the cosmological argument, a particular variant that most people know as Kalam's Cosmological Argument (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/kalamcosmological.html):

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

As near as I can tell, you're 4-step proof for God is really just an overly verbose way of stating the following:
1) The Universe is finite, so it has a beginning
2) Anything with a beginning has a cause
3) A first cause follows from an uncaused cause, which is god
4) Therefore god exists

(^^^^ note: please dont mind that this may not be an exact formulation of what you've said. I noticed that you accused me of being tricked by Satan when I made previous comments that "overassumed" (I've never heard of that word in my life) parts of what you were trying to say.)

You probably noticed that the cosmological argument really doesnt specify why god created the universe, what god did before or after he created the universe, or name any of his characteristics; essentially, the cosmological argument proves the existence of a deistic god, without providing any other details (and certainly no details that provide a basis for a religion). For this reason, you provided some reasons for why you think the god who exists just happens to be your conception of god.

Now, while cosmological arguments in all of their flavors are very popular for their simplicity and intuitive reasonableness, but yours is the least persuasive flavor of the cosmological argument I've ever seen in the 15+ years I've been studying the philosophy of religion. Basically, you tried to explain each premise of your four-step proof down to its axioms (or something very near to them), but your explanations were horrifically dubious and presumptuous, just take your Step 1 for example, which you describe as:

Step 1 is vital. It says, if anyone contends for an eternity of the past of cause and effects (and yes many have proposed this), then you would have had an eternity to be perfected (read the rest of the paragraph for why this is necessarily going to happen if there was an eternity of the past). However, since you still sin, you know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. ... For our purposes all we need see is that sinlessness is at a bare minimum not making damaging mistakes such as mistreating another person or being unhealthy to yourself.At first, this looks like a great big loop of circular logic (i.e. trying to prove Christianity based on the concept of sin, where the concept of sin is only meaningful if Christianity is true), but you redefined sin to mean any kind of harm you do to another person. At the very least, I can say you're not arguing in a circle...
... however, you are making some extremely unjustified and dubious presumptions:

- you are using the existence of humans as a way to measure the age of the universe when you havent shown that humans have existed since the very beginning of the universe. Your argument from sin, that we progress to a more sinless state over time, and that given an infinite amount of time we should be sinless, might be true (its not, and I'll get to that a little later), but the age of the universe and the existence of humans arent intrinsically connected to each other. Theres no contradiction in saying that the universe stretches back into infinity (perhaps in an endless cycle of bangs and crunches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch)), but things in the universe (such as humans) exist during fleeting moments in time; quite simply, the universe existed before humans, so humans could have a beginning (and hence still be sitting in their sinful state), but the universe could be infinite, no contradiction between the two.

For that reason, your four-step proof for God breaks down at the first level, because you havent actually tied the sinfulness of humans to the age of the universe. By application of your argument (once we've established that its not connected to the age of the universe), the fact I still sin says nothing about the age of the universe, only the age of humans. Humans have not existed for eternity, and that is all we can gather from your argument.

Believe me, there are other problems (such as whether we really are progressing morally, especially in light of the fact that most people are products of their culture and believe that their culture, no matter what it does, is more righteous than all other cultures), but I'm trying to keep my post brief. (You've probably never seen my posts on other forums, but I'm the most verbose person ever, and I can write and write and write for hours :) )

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.

Basically, there are better ways to prove the finititude of the universe, you dont have to rely on the incredibly esoteric "sin" argument you have. I'll prove that universe is finite for you, using a more contemporary and well-accepted explanation:

- If you've taken even a high school level science class, you should know the laws of thermodynamics, you should know how they're applied, you should know the difference between an open and closed system.

- In laymens terms, you can never get out all of energy you put into a system, because some of it always becomes useless heat. Thats why, even in a vacuum, if you drop a ball on the ground and just let it bounce on its own, each successive bounce will be less intense than the last, until gradually the ball comes to a stop; where did all the energy go? With each bounce, the ball compresses slightly, which causes friction between the material inside the ball and converts a small amount of that energy into heat. Eventually, all of the kinetic energy is used up until it just stops.

-- The same principle explains why perpetual motion machines are impossible. You've probably seen a hand-cranked generator that turns on a lightbulb (or if you go to the gym, some eletronic machines like a stationary bike are powered by our own peddling), then you're familiar with an electric generator. You've also probably seen an electric motor, like a vacuum cleaner, which needs a constant stream of electricity going through it to power the motor. Some people have thought they could create perpetual motion machines by hooking up a series of generators and motors in a circle, where each motor turns the generator crank and each turn of the crank supplies the motor with energy, so that essentially the machine could be self-powered and run forever. That sounds intuitively correct, and some people have certainly tried to make it work, but it just doesnt. The friction from internal mechanisms of the machines turns a small amount of each crank of the engine into useless heat, and the machine will begin to slow down more and more until it just stops. Unless you supply that machine with some outside source of energy, it will just grind to a halt.

- The principle above is the second law of thermodynamics, where the amount of heat or entropy in closed systems tends to increase and their wont be any available energy left for movement. Because the universe encompasses everything, it is a closed system, so given enough time the universe will eventually use up all its available energy, and all movement will stop as a result of the same rules that ceased the movement of the bouncing ball. You might have heard of this scenario called heat death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death), which is projected to occur in 10^900 to 10^1000 years time.

- If the universe is infinitely old, it should evidently be older than 10^1000 years, and so heat death should have already occurred. It hasnt, so the universe cannot be infinitely old, so it is finite.

The heat death argument isnt exactly bulletproof for at least two reasons:
- You've probably heard of the Big Crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch), where the mass in the universe will eventually slow the expansion of the universe and cause it collapse in on itself. It is concievable that the universe is born and dies through an endless cycle of bangs and crunches, so that concievably the universe could be infinitely old and gone through an infinite number of heat deaths through each bang-crunch cycle. (Its worth nothing that theres just not very good evidence that there really is a bang-crunch cycle, and we have no way of knowing whether this universe we live in is the first and only universe, or whether its just another aspect of the universe that has existed for eternity.)

- Ironically, if God exists, then his continued existence negates the heat death, because his continued interference in the universe is constantly adding energy (that presumes that God isnt subject to the laws of thermodynamics himself), and the universe could concievably infinitely old if God is constantly supplying the universe with more energy.

In short, Step 1 mangles the cosmological argument because your reasoning doesnt sufficiently show that the universe really does have a beginning, you're just using a very dubious calculation of the universe. The problem with Step 2 is the amount of question begging:

Second step: someone says, ok fine, but what if the universe started all by itself at some point? Look at the cosmos and know it is very complicated. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect. Therefore, since nothing, in more than a trillion examples, ever proves something happens without a cause, we can with the greatest of probabilities conclude everything has a cause. Since everything has a cause that is in known existence, then logic states that which is uncreated must have created. This is step 2 in the proof.There are 2 primary objections to this statement, the first is a theological objection, the second is a scientific objection:

- 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.

- Scientific objection:
My biggest problem with your argument is that you havent actually shown Step 2 to be true, you only stated it categorically. At best, you're statement is just an intuitional statement, but it is ignorant and arrogant to an extreme to think you can refute science with your own intuitional preconceptions, and its ignorant to think you can define science with your intuitions.

Intuition is one of the first, but least accurate tools for gaining knowledge of the universe. As is frequently the case, its just wrong, and there are many apparently "paradoxes" that have been developed with exploit our usually fallible intuitional beliefs:
- The classic example, the Birthday Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox): lets say started gathering random people into a room. How many people do you think we need to grab before we can say, with 50% probability, that two people in that room share the same birthday? How many people do we need before we have 99% probability that two people will share the same birthday? You only need 23 for 50% probability, and about 100 people for 99% probability. This completely contradicts our intuitional expectations that you need at least 365/2 people, but just look at the page I linked and you can play with the mathematics yourself.

- Another classic example, the Drug Test: lets say we have developed a new drug test that can detect the presence of a narcotic with 99.95% accuracy. What are the odds that a randomly selected person who tests positive is a drug user? Intuitionally, we say that the person is 99.95% likely to be a drug user, but in reality, the person is only 50% likely, and here's why:

Imagine you have a population of 1000 people, where 30 of them are drug users. Assuming that your drug test is 99.95% accuate, you can construct a chart to show the number of true negatives, true positives, false negatives, and false positives, like this:

TN - true negative, correctly identifies a non-drug user
TP - true positive, correctly identifies a drug user
FN - false negative, incorrectly identifies drug user
FP - false positive, incorrectly identifies a non-drug user

Population is 10000. 9500 are non-drug users, 500 are drug users

TN = accuracy * number_of_non-drug-users
TP = accuracy * number_of_drug-users
FN = number_of_drug-users - TP
FP = number_of_non-drug-users - TN

TN = 95% * 9500 = 9025
TP = 95% * 500 = 475
FN = 500 - 475 = 25
FP = 9500 - 9025 = 475
No matter the population or accuracy of the drug, number of False Positives will equal the number of False Positives, so the likelihood of a person being a drug user if they test positive is only 50%, which completely contradictions intuition.

Martin Gardner and Marilyn vos Savant are very famous for constructing other scenarios like the one above, that show how statistics frequently contradicts our intuitions.

- The most obvious scientific example: you are used to the world of motion, where if you are on a platform moving at 60 mph and your friend throws a ball in the same direction of the train at 40 mph, an external observe would expect see the ball moving at 60+40 mph or 100 mph (relative to the ground). And if platform were moving in the opposite direction, then the ball would be only be traveling at -60+40 mph or -20 mph (where negative means opposite direction).

So, how fast do you expect a beam of light to travel relative to the ground if your friend is riding on a train at 60 mph? Intuitively, you expect it to travel at c + 60 mph (where c is the speed of light, about 671 000 000 mph), but the beam moves at c. And if the train were travelling at 1000 mph, the beam of light still travels relative to the ground at c. No matter how fast the train travels, and no matter what direction, the light travels relative to the ground at a constant speed, which completely contradicts our intuitional expectations. Yet, its completely sound when you understand the math behind it.

With that out of the way, it should tell you something about your intuitional beliefs: they dont define the rules of the universe. The statement "everything needs a cause" seems very intuitional, you havent actually shown that such a principle is actually true for the universe. In fact, its not true at all, at least not on the very tiny scale, and in fact very few of the rules which hold true above the atomic scale are true below it -- if you are familiar with science, this problem is extremely fundamental, because havent quite unified macro and quantum physics (which is to say that we have two seperate scientific models, the first being einstein physics which explains the movement of objects larger than single protons, and the second model being quantum physics explains the movement of objects smaller than protons).

In the very tiny scale, the rules of "identify cause -> identical effect" is false, but rather "identify cause -> 40% probability of effect1, 30% probability of effect2, 25% probability of effect3, 5% probability of effect4". You stop dealing with causality and start dealing with probability distributions. In particular, when you stop dealing with causality, you get effects that really are completely acausal, specifically get these little things called virtual particles (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html), which flash into an out of existence spotaneously and they appear to violate the laws of conservation of energy (http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html):

Virtual Particles

In many decays and annihilations, a particle decays into a very high-energy force-carrier particle, which almost immediately decays into low-energy particle. These high-energy, short-lived particles are virtual particles.

The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice.

The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.
These little virtual particles are flashing into an out of existence all the time, and they do so without any cause at all and even when there isnt enough energy to create them. Even in a perfect vacuum, there is a sea of these things popping into and out of existence.

This is just my speculation on the subject, but I think it provides a good explanation where the energy that gave rise to the big bang came from:
- if you imagine the universe at the very beginning, where it had no space, no length, no width, and no depth, its is just a 0-d "point" for all intents and purpose.
- imagine that one those virtual particles spontaneous pops into existence, just like the tend to do, what happens when one of those things pops into existence of that universe? In laymens terms, its what happens when you fill 2 gallon water balloon with 20 gallons of water, you get a boom! :)
- given the particle, if there is no space, it has infinite density, and with infinite density it has infinite energy. And so the universe is born, but fortunately now that we have space, those little virtual particles dont mean so much now, but we are still thankful they are around.

At least that is my own private speculation on the creation of the universe, and its compliant with the laws of physics without requiring the existence of any gods to assist the process.

The problem with Step 3 is its unnecessary constraint that has no purpose and does not constitute a formal premise for a proof:

Step 3, which is misrepresented, does not say what Juliet says it said. Since the person, who can not overturn step 1 or 2, then tries to argue for something else, they try to argue against the attributes of some god, which is not the attributes of God of the Bible. Do you see how this is disingenuous? As the minimal facts approach is concerned, this proof does not care about other gods, but is merely proving God of the Bible, so if you want to put forth an argument, address it against God of the Bible and not trying to dispute some god.So far, the argument for god looks like this:

Step 1) The universe is finite
Step 2) Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Step 3) Please dont talk about any other gods apart from the Christian God
Step 4) Therefore god exists

Your constraint in Step 3 is meaningless, because its perfectly conceivable that god exists, but the very specific and particular Christian God does not exist. Steps 1 and 2 could be true and prove the existence of God, but they even constraining all discussion of your proof to the Christian God doesnt actually make the Christian God more plausible than all the others; the constraint is irrelevant. A deistic conception of God could be correct, where the deistic god (for some reason or another) creates the universe and abandons it to move along at its own devices, where the existence of humans is merely an unintended consequence of creation. God could create the universe without making human beings into a special creation, or even caring about humans or knowing about them at all, and it would be completely consistent with your first two steps in your proof.

The constraint that we should only talk about the Christian God is artificial, and if you were trying to prove any other god, you could use the exact same arguments to prove the truth of every religion, so long as you changed Step 3 ever-so-slightly so that a critic is only permitted to talk about whatever god another wants.

Finally, Step 4 is just another example of irrelevance:

Once the person appreciates step 3, they provide their one last stand at the ok corral-Step 4. They say, well why can't there be gods created gods for an eternity of the past so that your God is created also? This is just an offshoot of step 1, but instead of dealing with things in nature, it proposes gods created gods in the supernatural to explain our existence. This violates the principle proven in step 1 which say if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, whomever the constituents are, you still would have had an eternity to be perfected due to our observation today of the exponential progression cited. Try yourself to think of some more examples of exponential progression of our conscience in the saved. Note the unsaved do not want to change so that is why hell is created. In eternity hell takes care of them, and Juliet.You havent actually connected the creation of the universe or any other gods with the creation of humans; there is no contradiction between there is an infinite regress of gods who have created each other, but humans were only created recently in history rather than created an infinitely long time ago.

What seems like a perfect proof to you is actually an extremely poor, non-academic proof that could easily be mistaken for a parody. You need to seriously address the problems in Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, because it fails to stand under its own weight, otherwise you will have taken the almost elegantly written Kalam argument and mangled it beyond theological repair. You do not have a proof of god, and definitely not a proof of the Christian god.

However, after you restated your proof, you wrote the following:

Such God would necessitate His mercy and that mercy is revealed when Jesus entered into creation to die on the cross for your sins to give you eternal life if you were willing to receive it. None compare to the love of Christ, He said He is God and proved it, fulfilling 62 prophecies (probabilities less than 1 in a trillion for any mortal man to get lucky), surrounding 40 writers over 1500 years, in a historical-religio context, showing God's redemptive design, and the apostles died for testifying to His resurrection and ascension. The resurrection of Christ is unique and best testified. No person is more well documented in antiquity. There are 42 writers, both Christian and non-Christian speaking of Jesus in the first 150 years of his death. This far outweighs the number of writers about the Emperor of Rome who died 11 years after Jesus died by a margin of 4 to 1. Skeptics have no considerable valid explanation against Jesus being God.If it means anything to you at all, I wanted to get my degree in New Testament history (however many odd things lead to others, and I earned degrees in Business/Finance instead), so I know about the history of the bible, when it was written, and so on, and I'm 100% positive I know more about the bible than you do. Long story story short, here are some facts to digest:
- Israelites did not exist anytime before 1000 BC, and didnt begin to write down their stories until 900 BC.
- We dont know how any of the apostles died, apart from Judas. The martyrdom of the apostles is something of an extra-biblical addition that isnt actually recorded in the bible or history, so much as it circulated by word of mouth until it became "accepted" as a fact.
- We dont know anything about the life of Christ. We are fairly certain he existed, but his life is completely lost in myth and legend. Was he a good person who preached that people should humble themselves to God? Probably. Did he feed 5000 people with a few fish and two loaves of bread? Probably not. Was he crucified as a political criminal? Probably. Did he reanimate from the dead and begin preaching to people in the streets? Probably not.

The supernatural elements of Jesus' life make it so difficult to believe. 2000 years ago, people were very superstitious, and they lived in a world where the supernatural was readily observable and obvious. You think that, with all the technology we have now, if the supernatural used to be so plainly evident to people without the aid of scientific instruments, then surely we could detect the supernatural even more readily with instruments!...
... but we dont. Precisely the opposite: the more we study the universe, and the more sensitive our scientific instruments become, we see the universe is really a system of interacting mathematical equations. Billions of experiments are performed every year, some with the expressed purpose of uncovering psychic and supernatural powers, but not even once have we reliably observed any instance of the supernatural. From the point of view of skeptic, its very difficult to believe that the records of Jesus's miracles and displays of the supernatural are actually genuine or even happened at all, simply because the growing implausibility of supernatural powers.

- The most respected, mainstream scholars believe that Jesus existed, but that his life is exaggerated by a few zealous followers. If you want to know more about the historical Jesus, and certainly learn a lot more than you would learn reading second-rate apologetics all day, go to your library and pick up A Marginal Jew by John P Meier, The Historical Jesus by Gerd Theissen, The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan, and for a little more background on the development of the bible its worth the time to read Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox.

I honestly dont expect you pick up any of those, but I would really appreciate it if you knew a little more about your religion. Believe me, I've seen the pattern of belief a million times, and you are just a textbook example of someone who believed the bible was true long before you even had the faintest idea of why you thought it was true or even knew about it from an academic point of view.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but you're just a garden-variety fundamentalist who believes first and tries to prove later, essentially no different from the fundamentalists of every other religion who do the exact same thing, and you're beliefs are no better off than theirs. Jesus fulfilled just as many prophecies as Mohammed, and there is no argument that you can provide to disprove that claim. Why? Because you're making categorical statements without qualifying them, and there is fundamentally no reason to prefer your categorical statements above a Muslims unqualified categorical statements about his own religion.

Of course, if you're like me, then it should be fairly evident that all the gods of religion are false. They are made in the image of man, put man in the center of the universe, and give man an special place above any other animal; these kinds of gods are so obviously manmade fictions that they just cannot be believed. Even worse, the moral prescriptions these gods make are so completely naive (I could give a long long long list of naive morals if you like) that they just cannot come from a being who presumably has all the knowledge, all the wisdom, and the most perfect morals of any being in the universe; but it makes perfect sense if those naive moral commands come from egocentric, superstitious humans. A god might exist, but he certainly doesnt look like the gods of any religion.

Alright, I think I've said all I've felt like saying. Also, I'm an admin/mod at [removed forum], feel free to stop by and talk to me some more if you feel like it :)

Best wishes!
Juliet

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 05:27 PM

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 07:18 PM

Churchwork,
You probably noticed that the cosmological argument really doesnt specify why god created the universe, what god did before or after he created the universe, or name any of his characteristics; essentially, the cosmological argument proves the existence of a deistic god, without providing any other details (and certainly no details that provide a basis for a religion). For this reason, you provided some reasons for why you think the god who exists just happens to be your conception of god.
Since you have been invited to deal with the 4 Step Perfect Proof of God of the Bible and not bring up other matters, then you should show the courtesy to do so, i.e., stay on topic of the first post of this thread. Belligerency is a false fruit. The reasons given, as you continue to read, bear fruit of being not my reasoning per se, but God's reasoning is in revealing himself to us. I am disclosing this information, but it it agrees with what we find in nature and draws us back to God in proving Him. The reasons I give, since they can't be overturned with your ideas, should help you to see they remain as true as before. A deist god also can not overturn God of the Bible.

Any god who created the universe but has no concern for it is a god who is not God of the Bible, since an ambivalent god would be without purpose and he would utterly vain. He would also not be real.
Now, while cosmological arguments in all of their flavors are very popular for their simplicity and intuitive reasonableness, but yours is the least persuasive flavor of the cosmological argument I've ever seen in the 15+ years I've been studying the philosophy of religion. Basically, you tried to explain each premise of your four-step proof down to its axioms (or something very near to them), but your explanations were horrifically dubious and presumptuous, just take your Step 1 for example, which you describe as:

Step 1 is vital. It says, if anyone contends for an eternity of the past of cause and effects (and yes many have proposed this), then you would have had an eternity to be perfected (read the rest of the paragraph for why this is necessarily going to happen if there was an eternity of the past). However, since you still sin, you know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects. ... For our purposes all we need see is that sinlessness is at a bare minimum not making damaging mistakes such as mistreating another person or being unhealthy to yourself.I would not construe the 4 Step Perfect Proof of God of the Bible as a solely cosmological a argument, but rather simply the Perfect Proof of God of the Bible, relying on the depth of its 4 Steps of pure solid reasoning with a conscience.

Since you are still unable to find any mistake with it, then it is in fact the best proof you ever seen.

The proof itself has no axioms, for it is all proven in all its parts. As Step 1 shows, it is true, without assumption, and you could find no fault with it, so it remains solid.

At first, this looks like a great big loop of circular logic (i.e. trying to prove Christianity based on the concept of sin, where the concept of sin is only meaningful if Christianity is true), but you redefined sin to mean any kind of harm you do to another person. At the very least, I can say you're not arguing in a circle...

It is illogical to say a sin is only defined within the confines of Christianity, as the larger text of the Proof points out (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm). If this was true, then we would not throw people into jail. It is because of sin they go to jail. There is no circular logic not even at first glance, for it is quite clear, there is sin, we see it in nature, and there are consequences to sin. However, there is also the washing away of sins in time through God's redemptive design. We observe this actually happening these past 6000 years. This is the evidence. Christianity also believes it is a sin doing harm to another. I don't think anyone questions that who is not utterly obnoxious. It's good you see there is no circular argument.

... however, you are making some extremely unjustified and dubious presumptions:
As you will see there is no extreme unjustified and dubious presumptions except in your own heart in this discussion.

- you are using the existence of humans as a way to measure the age of the universe when you havent shown that humans have existed since the very beginning of the universe. Your argument from sin, that we progress to a more sinless state over time, and that given an infinite amount of time we should be sinless, might be true (its not, and I'll get to that a little later), but the age of the universe and the existence of humans arent intrinsically connected to each other. Theres no contradiction in saying that the universe stretches back into infinity (perhaps in an endless cycle of bangs and crunches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch)), but things in the universe (such as humans) exist during fleeting moments in time; quite simply, the universe existed before humans, so humans could have a beginning (and hence still be sitting in their sinful state), but the universe could be infinite, no contradiction between the two.
Even crunches have a cause, so on and on, therefore, they too are restricted by a first cause law and under the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) being the cause of our bodies. Also, scientists are agreed that the dark energy is pushing out the gravity of dark matter and matter at an exponentially increasing rate since inception of the big bang, so the crunch idea is not even supported, but is just in your imagination.

I never claimed that humans existed from the very beginning of the universe. Rather, step 1 of the proof is only saying if such a thing had occurred it would not be possible given the evidence of the exponential progression in our conscience. The age of the universe is not the issue, but whether there is infinite regression in the past and that the exponential progression of our conscience does not allow for an infinite regression in the past of our existence. Thus, in your misrepresenting step 1, you are arguing from sin and as usual, falsely accusing, from sin in accusing of arguing from sin.

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.

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. Since all we see is an exponential progression in our conscience, we know that sinlessness is ahead of us and we must have been created.

Humans having been created, even so, we know the universe too had to have been created because at any point in the past of eternity from which humans would have been created approximates eternity itself (as calculus teaches), so that you know we would have had an eternity to be perfected.

Consequently, this response shows you are still in state of contradiction, because we still sin. The evidence is against you and there is no reason you have whatsoever of these endless looping cycles of existence that are without a first cause. Hence, step 2 is quite important because it shows us that since nothing in nature is without a cause, the only possibility is the uncaused must be the cause, and none compare the uncauseness of Christ.

For that reason, your four-step proof for God breaks down at the first level, because you havent actually tied the sinfulness of humans to the age of the universe. By application of your argument (once we've established that its not connected to the age of the universe), the fact I still sin says nothing about the age of the universe, only the age of humans. Humans have not existed for eternity, and that is all we can gather from your argument.
For the reasons given in my response, your reasons don't stand up. The 4 Step Proof of God remains a solid at all points, starting at the first level of step 1, that we sin and this helps show us something in the exponential progression of our conscience to realize that there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the universe, otherwise we would be without sin now.

The sinfulness of humans and exponential progression of our conscience shows us unequivocally therefore the age of the universe is not infinite. Once you see this connection, the fact you still sin shows you the vital principle of the age of the universe is not infinite. It bespeaks not merely of the age of humans, but also the age of the universe as we bring in calculus. Humans have not existed for eternity AND the universe has not existed for eternity. This is what we can gather. But we don't stop there, because some people like to claim the universe started all by itself and block out their mind to the proof of step 1. Hence step 2 is an important follow-up to corroborate step 1's findings.

Believe me, there are other problems (such as whether we really are progressing morally, especially in light of the fact that most people are products of their culture and believe that their culture, no matter what it does, is more righteous than all other cultures), but I'm trying to keep my post brief. (You've probably never seen my posts on other forums, but I'm the most verbose person ever, and I can write and write and write for hours)
That we are progressng morally by our conscience is proven by several examples given, and so many more can be offered up as well. Culture is an improving element as well, for our culture is a product of our conscience and actions that flow from it. While culture, which is environment really, impacts people, this does not take away from the fact we see an exponential progression in conscience. In my experience in this proof, this has always been the number one place where atheists and agnostics shut their mind down. I alway try to bring them back to this essential fact, but they divert to other matters and miss the initial proof which is the foundational piece of evidence. You will notice in yourself already, your willingness to shut your mind down to this exponential progression in our conscience as witnessed in so many affairs in humanity. Try to come back to it because that is the key element for you to receive Christ into your life for someone who is so verbose and admits his own verbal diatribe.

So far now at this point we have seen you have made some extreme claims of a universe eternally existing without a first cause which you have no reason for doing. Therefore, your idea is extremely dubious and unjustifiable and a lame excuse to reject God of the Bible. 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. So you fabribate ideas with your presumption and overassuming. Lacking humility is the root cause of your false claim. The cause of lacking humility is your hostility to your Creator. Your hostility is due to the fall of Adam and your unwillingness to be saved.

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 08:37 PM

Churchwork,
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.
You'll find as you read this your claim is bizarre and mine is perfectly reasonable.

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.

Basically, there are better ways to prove the finititude of the universe, you dont have to rely on the incredibly esoteric "sin" argument you have. I'll prove that universe is finite for you, using a more contemporary and well-accepted explanation:
You'll find the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible remains the best proof in agreement with the Word.

Actually, I am not proving the finiteness of the universe, for no reasonable scientist is even saying the universe will cease to exist. Rather, we have proved that the universe began. Your terms are inadequate.

Sin is not esoteric. If it was esoteric, why are we so easily able to throw someone into jail who commits a crime in such definitive and well thought out terms?

Understand the reason you don't want to deal with the sin issue is because your mind is darkened and your conscience is dead to obvious things such as sin.

- If you've taken even a high school level science class, you should know the laws of thermodynamics, you should know how they're applied, you should know the difference between an open and closed system.

- In laymens terms, you can never get out all of energy you put into a system, because some of it always becomes useless heat. Thats why, even in a vacuum, if you drop a ball on the ground and just let it bounce on its own, each successive bounce will be less intense than the last, until gradually the ball comes to a stop; where did all the energy go? With each bounce, the ball compresses slightly, which causes friction between the material inside the ball and converts a small amount of that energy into heat. Eventually, all of the kinetic energy is used up until it just stops.

-- The same principle explains why perpetual motion machines are impossible. You've probably seen a hand-cranked generator that turns on a lightbulb (or if you go to the gym, some eletronic machines like a stationary bike are powered by our own peddling), then you're familiar with an electric generator. You've also probably seen an electric motor, like a vacuum cleaner, which needs a constant stream of electricity going through it to power the motor. Some people have thought they could create perpetual motion machines by hooking up a series of generators and motors in a circle, where each motor turns the generator crank and each turn of the crank supplies the motor with energy, so that essentially the machine could be self-powered and run forever. That sounds intuitively correct, and some people have certainly tried to make it work, but it just doesnt. The friction from internal mechanisms of the machines turns a small amount of each crank of the engine into useless heat, and the machine will begin to slow down more and more until it just stops. Unless you supply that machine with some outside source of energy, it will just grind to a halt.

- The principle above is the second law of thermodynamics, where the amount of heat or entropy in closed systems tends to increase and their wont be any available energy left for movement. Because the universe encompasses everything, it is a closed system, so given enough time the universe will eventually use up all its available energy, and all movement will stop as a result of the same rules that ceased the movement of the bouncing ball. You might have heard of this scenario called heat death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death), which is projected to occur in 10^900 to 10^1000 years time.

- If the universe is infinitely old, it should evidently be older than 10^1000 years, and so heat death should have already occurred. It hasnt, so the universe cannot be infinitely old, so it is finite.
You actually don't need to get this complicated especially dealing with such big numbers that are such big assumptions and uncertainties. All you need do is look at the fact that we need nowhere near the time aloted for heat death to reach sinlesness just by observing the exponential progression in our conscience. It won't take another 6000 years to reach sinlessness, but even if it took a million years, this is a far cry from heat death.

Also, you assume the universe is a closed system. There is noway anyone could know that. As far as we know it is expanding forever and spreading out more and more. This approach then you provide is too uncertain.

And the matter of when heat death may occur does not need to come into play when considering the concept of an eternity of the past because eternity of the past does not need address the issue of heat death. All that is needed to be known is that since we still sin, you know the universe has not existed for eternity in the past, otherwise we would not be sinning now. This is pure logic. Even if we needed a full eternity, you know there has not been an eternity, because we still sin, and the exponential progression of our conscience approaches sinlessness itself because of the exponential aspect of the progression.

You are quickly learning that sin is the center of the issue and proof for God.

We are left with only one conclusion and the best method of that conclusion: the universe was created at some point at least 13.7 billion years ago, and scientists seem to agree.

The heat death argument isnt exactly bulletproof for at least two reasons:
- You've probably heard of the Big Crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch), where the mass in the universe will eventually slow the expansion of the universe and cause it collapse in on itself. It is concievable that the universe is born and dies through an endless cycle of bangs and crunches, so that concievably the universe could be infinitely old and gone through an infinite number of heat deaths through each bang-crunch cycle. (Its worth nothing that theres just not very good evidence that there really is a bang-crunch cycle, and we have no way of knowing whether this universe we live in is the first and only universe, or whether its just another aspect of the universe that has existed for eternity.)

- Ironically, if God exists, then his continued existence negates the heat death, because his continued interference in the universe is constantly adding energy (that presumes that God isnt subject to the laws of thermodynamics himself), and the universe could concievably infinitely old if God is constantly supplying the universe with more energy.

The 2nd step of the 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible easily takes care of this big crunch and big bang recycling for the eternity of the past. Since this is a suggestion there has been an eternity of the past, and all things in nature have a cause, then we can easily conclude that the first cause of it all is the uncaused, uncreated creator. Because the natural cause can not be the cause since all natural effects have causes, then we are left with no choice but to accept Christ. We discover that creator is Christ.

Non-ironically, God's continued existence does not negate any heat death or its vital relevance because any miracles He performs entering into His creation need not add energy to such a degree you propose or even require any be added at all, or even that heat death is an axiom for the universe. And since the 4 Step Proof does not need to discuss such esoteric things as heat death and such big fat assumptions of things that are going to happen so far away, it need not be brought up, is not helpful and is a non-issue, relatively off-topic.

This is why I told you at the start, stay on topic of the 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible. Satan likes to deflect onto other things, because he is the author of confusion. He uses confusion to go off topic all the time. People that like to disprove falsely something that is true tend to rely on the most far fetched things that are not able to be proven any time soon.

So far since you can find no error in the 4 Step Proof, it remains our proof of God of the Bible.

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 09:04 PM

Churchwork,
In short, Step 1 mangles the cosmological argument because your reasoning doesnt sufficiently show that the universe really does have a beginning, you're just using a very dubious calculation of the universe.
Your mistake tries to introduce a cosmological argument into the frey that is so dissimilar to the 4 Step Proof, instead of dealing specifically with the 4 Step Proof itself. You would need to have left out someone elses' proof, and refocus back on the 4 Step Proof itself. This is a horribly mangled attempt when you try to do that. The call here is for you to be more specific in seeing the exponential progression of our conscience.

Step 1 has been shown to perfectly prove why the universe had to be created and have a beginning. Your attempt to try to disprove it was to use dubious caclulations of things you just can't know about the universe such as whether there is a heat death or not or whether the universe could ever implode on itself. We just don't know that, nor whether the universe is a closed system, so it is better to take the humble approach and keep your assumptions, dubious at best, out of the discussion.

Even if the universe were to implode on itself, step 2 easily destroys an infinity of the past of heat deaths and so does step 1, since heat death recycling is of meaningless value. If the purpose of the universe was meaningless, then there was no need for all the good things that were done on earth so far inspite of the bad things. Most people don't believe in such meaninglessness.

What we have show so far so perfectly in step 1 is that it is a fact that you sin, you know there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects since if there was we would not still be sinning. Interestingly, sinlessness can not happen within a heat death, unless there is an avenue out of the heat death, because sinlessness provides for no death as sin leads to death. Therefore, even if there was a heat death, it is not an issue because the sinlessness escapes the creation, like gravity seaps out of it as well. Scientists agree there is a loss of gravity in the calculations somehow as though we are losing some of it in its dissipation out of the universe. This also is a reason for possibly no closed system if it can escape out of the system.

It is a most amazing proof step 1. We still sin. Therefore, even if the universe had an infinite amount of time to get us to be sinless, it still failed. Therefore, the universe was not infinite in the past. At some point God created and we are still in the redemptive design.

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 09:43 PM

Churchwork,

The problem with Step 2 is the amount of question begging:
Second step: someone says, ok fine, but what if the universe started all by itself at some point? Look at the cosmos and know it is very complicated. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect. Therefore, since nothing, in more than a trillion examples, ever proves something happens without a cause, we can with the greatest of probabilities conclude everything has a cause. Since everything has a cause that is in known existence, then logic states that which is uncreated must have created. This is step 2 in the proof.
There is no question begging except in your accusing of such and in your own beliefs of an eternity of the past. Again, the difference is, Christians have evidence, but you don't put anything forth yet to make your case.

There are 2 primary objections to this statement, the first is a theological objection, the second is a scientific objection:

- 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.

- Scientific objection:
My biggest problem with your argument is that you havent actually shown Step 2 to be true, you only stated it categorically. At best, you're statement is just an intuitional statement, but it is ignorant and arrogant to an extreme to think you can refute science with your own intuitional preconceptions, and its ignorant to think you can define science with your intuitions.

Actually, step 2 is not stated categorically, but is proven. With the highest of probabilities we know nothing in nature is causeless that we know of, therefore it is a reasonable assessment to conclude that the ultimate cause was causeless. It is both logical and reasonable, intuitive and with a clear conscience.

Now what is illogical and extremely arrogant is to see that nothing in the trillions of effects in our universe is without a cause and we are able to test trillions of causes for effects, yet still hold out the idea that the universe has been going on infinitely in the past. That's like rolling a twenty sided die and expecting to get the number 1 to land each time for a hundred times in a row. Your intuition is sorely wrong to think you can win that way. Your preconception is simply to assume an eternity of the past of causes and effects, but still you have no basis, none whatsoever.

God does not want those with such horrible reasoning and mindlessness.

Since what I have shown is based on hard evidence and not only intuition, and what you believe is based on your corrupted intuition only, does it not stand to reason that you should repent?

Intuition is one of the first, but least accurate tools for gaining knowledge of the universe. As is frequently the case, its just wrong, and there are many apparently "paradoxes" that have been developed with exploit our usually fallible intuitional beliefs:
- The classic example, the Birthday Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox): lets say started gathering random people into a room. How many people do you think we need to grab before we can say, with 50% probability, that two people in that room share the same birthday? How many people do we need before we have 99% probability that two people will share the same birthday? You only need 23 for 50% probability, and about 100 people for 99% probability. This completely contradicts our intuitional expectations that you need at least 365/2 people, but just look at the page I linked and you can play with the mathematics yourself.

Don't accuse someone of only using intuition, when they are using reason. After all you are only using intuition and not reason, so your accusation applies to you.

However, your reasoning is incorrect. Intuition happens to be the best tool of all, because if your intuition is clear, so shall you reasoning be right. You must understand that the reason your reasoning is so bad is because your intuition is so dull. One must aid their intuition with their mind with correct facts and not be so overassuming. The spiritual knowledge you receive in your innerman will cause you to conduct yourself outwardly in your soul and body, and to think properly non-overassumingly about the universe.

Understand why the Birthday Paradox for you is a true axiom, because your intuition is not right and your math skills suck. But for Christians it is not a paradox at all, but our intuition leads to proper reasoning of the finding that you need not the greater number cited because we know reasonably there is much overlapping for two people to have a birthday on the same day. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Where the problems lie is in your assumptions which were wrong, just like your assumptions about the universe. The fact of the matter is you don't know if the universe is a closed or open system. You don't know how much more time exists. But what a Christian says is not to overassume things you don't know and just look at the evidence from the minimal facts approach. This is the beginning of wisdom: humility.

Since all things are created then it must be true the uncreated created since no other possibly reveals itself. This is why we believe in God.

It doesn't stand to reason that since your intuition is so bad, that others would be as bad as yours is in assessing probabilities by guessing. That same intuition actually is infused with God-consciousness, so deep down inside you know God did it, but like Satan, you would rather see what hell is like even to spend eternity there. Your choice. God did not make you do it.

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 10:21 PM

Churchwork,
- Another classic example, the Drug Test: lets say we have developed a new drug test that can detect the presence of a narcotic with 99.95% accuracy. What are the odds that a randomly selected person who tests positive is a drug user? Intuitionally, we say that the person is 99.95% likely to be a drug user, but in reality, the person is only 50% likely, and here's why:

Imagine you have a population of 1000 people, where 30 of them are drug users. Assuming that your drug test is 99.95% accuate, you can construct a chart to show the number of true negatives, true positives, false negatives, and false positives, like this:

TN - true negative, correctly identifies a non-drug user
TP - true positive, correctly identifies a drug user
FN - false negative, incorrectly identifies drug user
FP - false positive, incorrectly identifies a non-drug user

Population is 10000. 9500 are non-drug users, 500 are drug users

TN = accuracy * number_of_non-drug-users
TP = accuracy * number_of_drug-users
FN = number_of_drug-users - TP
FP = number_of_non-drug-users - TN

TN = 95% * 9500 = 9025
TP = 95% * 500 = 475
FN = 500 - 475 = 25
FP = 9500 - 9025 = 475
No matter the population or accuracy of the drug, number of False Positives will equal the number of False Positives, so the likelihood of a person being a drug user if they test positive is only 50%, which completely contradictions intuition.
So the reader can see, you are trying to show that that expectations and intuition can be wrong. However, since the 4 Step Proof for God is proven fully with sound reason and evidence founded on a clear conscience through intuition, then the Proof does not suffer the weight of error in intuitively thinking without basis that the universe was eternally existing in the past. It may seem reasonable to think that there is always yet another cause for an event in the universe, but then you have to ask what caused that, so on and so forth. Since no cause can be the ultimate cause, therefore, it must be the uncaused. As hard as that is to grasp we must accept it. Like Spock on Star Trek said, if all known possibilities are impossible then the seemingly impossible must be fact.

Martin Gardner and Marilyn vos Savant are very famous for constructing other scenarios like the one above, that show how statistics frequently contradicts our intuitions.

- The most obvious scientific example: you are used to the world of motion, where if you are on a platform moving at 60 mph and your friend throws a ball in the same direction of the train at 40 mph, an external observe would expect see the ball moving at 60+40 mph or 100 mph (relative to the ground). And if platform were moving in the opposite direction, then the ball would be only be traveling at -60+40 mph or -20 mph (where negative means opposite direction).

So, how fast do you expect a beam of light to travel relative to the ground if your friend is riding on a train at 60 mph? Intuitively, you expect it to travel at c + 60 mph (where c is the speed of light, about 671 000 000 mph), but the beam moves at c. And if the train were travelling at 1000 mph, the beam of light still travels relative to the ground at c. No matter how fast the train travels, and no matter what direction, the light travels relative to the ground at a constant speed, which completely contradicts our intuitional expectations. Yet, its completely sound when you understand the math behind it.

This example should help convince you then that just because you see no end in site for the eternity of the past of cause and effects, does not deem it to be necessarily so, because all things in nature have a cause, without exception. Therefore, to begin the universe, you would need that which is uncaused who would be God. As hard as it is to fathom intuitively that there is an uncreated being out there, we must logically accept this finding given all that we know, and you must let go of your faulty intuition if you want to be saved.

Your faulty intuition is actually just based in selfishness and a choice to remain that way.

With that out of the way, it should tell you something about your intuitional beliefs: they dont define the rules of the universe. The statement "everything needs a cause" seems very intuitional, you havent actually shown that such a principle is actually true for the universe. In fact, its not true at all, at least not on the very tiny scale, and in fact very few of the rules which hold true above the atomic scale are true below it -- if you are familiar with science, this problem is extremely fundamental, because havent quite unified macro and quantum physics (which is to say that we have two seperate scientific models, the first being einstein physics which explains the movement of objects larger than single protons, and the second model being quantum physics explains the movement of objects smaller than protons).

Christians have never said our intuition defines the rules of the universe, so your thinking we thought that is just your false accusation. Always remember, when you accuse, realize who is the great accuser - Satan!

Since we show everything we have ever seen has a cause and can never see anything without a cause, to assume the latter is overassuming, since there is no evidence for it.

While we have trillions of examples of thing with a cause, we can not yet find a thing without a cause, nor can you, so to assume something with such low odds is quite insane.

Now just because something is tiny, does not mean this principle is violated. On a small scale we see time and time again things that are caused.

Understand what you are attempting to do in your flesh. Just like your argument before was based on things so far away we can not know them yet, you are using the same idea on a quantum scale. There are things we see that have a cause in the quantum scale and others we can not yet find the cause. Just because we did not ever see small bacteria, did not mean they did not exist in their causal relationship to our getting illnesses.

In the very tiny scale, the rules of "identify cause -> identical effect" is false, but rather "identify cause -> 40% probability of effect1, 30% probability of effect2, 25% probability of effect3, 5% probability of effect4". You stop dealing with causality and start dealing with probability distributions. In particular, when you stop dealing with causality, you get effects that really are completely acausal, specifically get these little things called virtual particles (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html), which flash into an out of existence spotaneously and they appear to violate the laws of conservation of energy (http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html):

These little virtual particles are flashing into an out of existence all the time, and they do so without any cause at all and even when there isnt enough energy to create them. Even in a perfect vacuum, there is a sea of these things popping into and out of existence.

Just because something has 40% probability does not mean it does not have a cause. Just like free-will. Just because our free-will was created by God does not mean it does not have a cause. Just because a person may have a probability of 40% of doing a particular thing, does not mean this is without cause. God gives the free-will to have the probability, but it is perfectly righteous because the person is made in God's image to have that choice to freely choose. It may seem to us like 40%, but in reality the person has an authentic choice before her, which just so happens to turn out, people choose it 40% of the time.

Probability does not violate the law of causality. When you stop dealing with causality, you start dealing pseudo-science and presuming non causality, which is nonsense. Particles that even flash in and out of our awareness does not mean they flash in and out of existence, but rather we just can't see their root cause of what brought them into our awareness. Many things in life have seemed to in one's intuition to violate the laws of cause and effect, but later we discover the actual cause. Just because something is so complex and apparently spontaneous, does not mean it is without cause as nothing in nature has ever seen to be without a cause that we can confidently say was causeless.

Conservation of energy does not get violated either, but we just can't see where the dissipation gets lost. Understand what pride is. Pride is claiming something must be without the humility of allowing for what we can't yet see. Just because you can't see the cause, doesn't mean one is not there. What it does suggest is your lack of humility to be willing and be open to the possibility of the cause as we have so often found before in things.

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 10:53 PM

Churchwork,
These little virtual particles are flashing into an out of existence all the time, and they do so without any cause at all and even when there isnt enough energy to create them. Even in a perfect vacuum, there is a sea of these things popping into and out of existence.
This is illogical. Just because they go out of your peripheral vision in your limited skill set bespeaks of your pride when you claim nothing happens to cause them and they end up being nothing when you can't see them. Scientists don't hold this view. That's why they are looking now for such causes, because they are sure they exist as root causes. For example they are looking now for what is termed a God particle. Precedence in history has always shown that there is a cause and effect in everything. From the simple to the more complex we discover we can't find the root cause of something, but as we gain more knowledge we eventually figure it out.

Even to assume there is not enough energy to create them is illogical. That they exist shows there is enough energy to cause them. Whatever these things are you think you see, I love that you can't see their root cause and where they eventually end up. I love God that He doesn't let you see, because in fact there will always be something God won't let you know. Wow!

This is just my speculation on the subject, but I think it provides a good explanation where the energy that gave rise to the big bang came from:
- if you imagine the universe at the very beginning, where it had no space, no length, no width, and no depth, its is just a 0-d "point" for all intents and purpose.
- imagine that one those virtual particles spontaneous pops into existence, just like the tend to do, what happens when one of those things pops into existence of that universe? In laymens terms, its what happens when you fill 2 gallon water balloon with 20 gallons of water, you get a boom!
- given the particle, if there is no space, it has infinite density, and with infinite density it has infinite energy. And so the universe is born, but fortunately now that we have space, those little virtual particles dont mean so much now, but we are still thankful they are around.

It may have been a very simple mechanism God used to start the big bang. Just like He won't let you understand all the causes such as these virtual particles, so He is not going to let you know how He started the big bang otherwise, you could cause lots of destruction. For now, He is going to limit you to nuclear explosions.

It's funny to see you struggle in your hostility against God; it's also sad because it means you are going to hell, using lame reasoning to reject salvation. I find that the lame reasoning is just front, because deep down inside you know you are a bad person who doesn't want to be saved. That's why I say just be intellectually honest with yourself. If that is what you want, so be it. But don't create this silly mask your wear: silly reasoning. It's like someone who drives a car with a license plate that says "I'm Ok".

If the universe has infinite density and infinite energy, then there is no implosion, but it is going to increase exponentially forever. That blows your mind to think that and goes totally against your intuition, but to date the evidence only suggests this.

I am thankful God is in firm control of all the particles.

At least that is my own private speculation on the creation of the universe, and its compliant with the laws of physics without requiring the existence of any gods to assist the process.

The problem with Step 3 is its unnecessary constraint that has no purpose and does not constitute a formal premise for a proof:
Step 3, which is misrepresented, does not say what Juliet says it said. Since the person, who can not overturn step 1 or 2, then tries to argue for something else, they try to argue against the attributes of some god, which is not the attributes of God of the Bible. Do you see how this is disingenuous? As the minimal facts approach is concerned, this proof does not care about other gods, but is merely proving God of the Bible, so if you want to put forth an argument, address it against God of the Bible and not trying to dispute some god.So far, the argument for god looks like this:
Step 1) The universe is finite
Step 2) Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Step 3) Please dont talk about any other gods apart from the Christian God
Step 4) Therefore god exists

Your argument fails you because you still have no reason for thinking something happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon. It being a natural particle as are all known particles, they have their causes. God then being uncreated would be the cause. It's hard to believe I know, but we have to put our intuition aside and accept the miraculous because it is the only feasible possibility. Do you worship puff the magic dragon of meaninglessness or do you accept the reasonableness of purpose in God's intent?

Your position might have some ground if a flashing object always kept going on and off in your living room and you could never figure out what it was. But then again, maybe it is God's divinee intervention trying to get you to wake up! :)

Be honest with yourself, and don't look for the most complicated of things to make your wild theories which you know so much speculate exists about anyway, but try to capture evidence from that which is near to home like that flashing light in the middle of your living room if you can find such a thing.

Step 3 is a most essential element of the proof, because so often people bring up an argument against some god that is foreign to God. So it is important to keep it on God of the Bible, not other gods. We are only concerned with defending our God of the Bible.

Even after mentioning Step 3, to discount it without reason is quite belligerent. Remember, this proof is of God of the Bible, not about other gods.

You are still misreading all 4 steps. Let me repeat them again for you.
1) Not that the universe is infinite, but that the universe is not eternally existing in the past because if it was you would still not be sinning, considering observation of the exponential progression of our conscience very soon mankind in the saved will not be in sin anymore.
2) Not that everything which has a beginning has a cause, but that everything we have ever seen in nature is not without a cause, so therefore, the ultimate cause is the causeless God.
3) Not that you don't talk about other gods but God of the Bible, but don't try to argue against anything accept the tenants of God of the Bible if you would be so hostile against God.
4) Not that therefore God or a god exists, but that if there was an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, you would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin; since you still sin, you know God created.

Just a warning, if you keep restating the 4 Step Proof incorrectly I will have to issue Infractions for your sin bearing false witness in obstinacy. What is the point of trying to disprove something if you are trying to disprove something else that is not the 4 Step Proof. :grin:

Churchwork

11-25-2006, 11:22 PM

Churchwork,
Your constraint in Step 3 is meaningless, because its perfectly conceivable that god exists, but the very specific and particular Christian God does not exist. Steps 1 and 2 could be true and prove the existence of God, but they even constraining all discussion of your proof to the Christian God doesnt actually make the Christian God more plausible than all the others; the constraint is irrelevant. A deistic conception of God could be correct, where the deistic god (for some reason or another) creates the universe and abandons it to move along at its own devices, where the existence of humans is merely an unintended consequence of creation. God could create the universe without making human beings into a special creation, or even caring about humans or knowing about them at all, and it would be completely consistent with your first two steps in your proof.
Is it really a constraint to ask that you stay on topic which is what Step 3 is for? For example, let's say you try to disprove the god of mormonism. How does that relate to the Bible? It doesn't. Since mormons believe God is gods, you would be trying to disprove tritheism of mormon gods being one God, but Christians don't believe in that heresy anyway. So we say, hello mcfly! Hehe.

Whether another god exists is irrelevant, since the proof is about whether God of the Bible exists, and so far as we have seen Step 1 & Step 2 solidly show us the uncreated creator is God of the Bible given Christ and His resurrection given by the mercy of God the Father.

Step 3 does not say not to talk about other gods, not at all, only that if you are trying to disprove God of the Bible, don't do so by thinking you are arguing a point against Him but is really arguing a point against some god that is not God. Such a simple step should not be so complicated for you unless you are just being belligerent.

Deism has already been proven false since God is not vain. You don't just create something for no reason at all. Though you might, God would not. Nothing God does is unintended. Since we are created in His image and the most intelligent beings on earth we are more than merely a passing thought. The probability of life on other planets is so remotely small, it is very unlikely. A reaonable person says, humans stand out as something extraordinary.

The very fact that the universe can move along could not have been possible if it was not accounted for to be able to do so by God. Moreover, God if He could, would not stop at just some natural elements, but He is going to create a creation to the fullest, including making man in His image. It is so unfortunate for you that you prefer to go to hell; that is, you like being a bad person.

It would be completely inconsistent with the first two steps that God would abandon His creation, since along the 4 Steps is the principle of a caring God who wants to walk with His creation (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm), not an evil god that leaves to fend for yourself. The latter would be quite unreasonable, unrighteous and unholy of the God. In recording the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and comparing all know proclamations of God, we see none can compare to Christ.

The constraint that we should only talk about the Christian God is artificial, and if you were trying to prove any other god, you could use the exact same arguments to prove the truth of every religion, so long as you changed Step 3 ever-so-slightly so that a critic is only permitted to talk about whatever god another wants.
The assumption you make that only the Christian God can be talked about is your misreading. Remember, step 3 doesn't say you can only talk about God of the Bible, but rather if you are going to try to disprove God of the Bible, it would not serve any purpose to do so by trying to disprove a point of some god that Christians don't agree with anyway. Do you see the error in your thinking?

You can't use the 4 Step Proof for every religion for only one religion has Christ embedded in it, and that is Christianity.

Do you see how you are reaching in your arguments to misreading the Proof?

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 12:15 AM

Churchwork,

Finally, Step 4 is just another example of irrelevance:
Once the person appreciates step 3, they provide their one last stand at the ok corral-Step 4. They say, well why can't there be gods created gods for an eternity of the past so that your God is created also? This is just an offshoot of step 1, but instead of dealing with things in nature, it proposes gods created gods in the supernatural to explain our existence. This violates the principle proven in step 1 which say if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, whomever the constituents are, you still would have had an eternity to be perfected due to our observation today of the exponential progression cited. Try yourself to think of some more examples of exponential progression of our conscience in the saved. Note the unsaved do not want to change so that is why hell is created. In eternity hell takes care of them, and Juliet.You havent actually connected the creation of the universe or any other gods with the creation of humans; there is no contradiction between there is an infinite regress of gods who have created each other, but humans were only created recently in history rather than created an infinitely long time ago.
Step 4 is most relevant, for it addresses not the natural cause and effects (Step 1), but any supernatural cause and effects that may be out there in gods or otherwise; so, since we still sin, you know there was not an eternity of the past of causes and effects in the supernatural arena. We would have certainly have been without sin by now!

What seems like a perfect proof to you is actually an extremely poor, non-academic proof that could easily be mistaken for a parody. You need to seriously address the problems in Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, because it fails to stand under its own weight, otherwise you will have taken the almost elegantly written Kalam argument and mangled it beyond theological repair. You do not have a proof of god, and definitely not a proof of the Christian god.

What else can you do but mindlessly accuse of parody or non-academic since you don't rely on any evidence yet. On the contrary the parody and the non-academic is the idea of puff the magic dragon that you propose or disregarding sin. Your approach is in the scholarly community considered absurd and of no account. No reasoning scientist would ever suggest to you that things happen all by themselves or that there is nothing to this evidential exponential improvement in our conscience these past 6000 years. Your approach is extremely poor and of no substance. And may I say that of a dullard!

However, after you restated your proof, you wrote the following:
I never restated my proof. It is the exact same proof for many years now. Nothing has changed of the basic 4 step proof. Something so consistently strong says something, don't you think?

Such God would necessitate His mercy and that mercy is revealed when Jesus entered into creation to die on the cross for your sins to give you eternal life if you were willing to receive it. None compare to the love of Christ, He said He is God and proved it, fulfilling 62 prophecies (probabilities less than 1 in a trillion for any mortal man to get lucky), surrounding 40 writers over 1500 years, in a historical-religio context, showing God's redemptive design, and the apostles died for testifying to His resurrection and ascension. The resurrection of Christ is unique and best testified. No person is more well documented in antiquity. There are 42 writers, both Christian and non-Christian speaking of Jesus in the first 150 years of his death. This far outweighs the number of writers about the Emperor of Rome who died 11 years after Jesus died by a margin of 4 to 1. Skeptics have no considerable valid explanation against Jesus being God.
If it means anything to you at all, I wanted to get my degree in New Testament history (however many odd things lead to others, and I earned degrees in Business/Finance instead), so I know about the history of the bible, when it was written, and so on, and I'm 100% positive I know more about the bible than you do.
Lots of people know more about the Bible on details of various kinds than me and lots of people know less, but it is knowledge for knowledge sake alone that NOT is the salvation of Christ, but in coming to the cross to receive Christ as your Lord and Savior for the forgiveness of sins and receive eternal life. If you believe in this man who was also God so shall you be saved. If you are willing to stand up for the one who died for you, so shall you be saved. Since you find no problem with the Bible, then you should accept it. Why sit on the fence? A degree in religion is not going to save you. Anyone can be saved, for it is the simplest thing in the world. There is one thing though may I say, I don't know anyone alive today that knows the depth of the Scripture on spiritual truths revealed in the 5 Deeper Truths (http://biblocality.com/forums/rules.php#five) and the 37 questions in your profile (http://biblocality.com/forums/profile.php?do=editprofile) to this extent, which are things that really count and spiritually motivate you to overcome in Christ! Take a look.

Long story story short, here are some facts to digest:
- Israelites did not exist anytime before 1000 BC, and didnt begin to write down their stories until 900 BC.
- We dont know how any of the apostles died, apart from Judas. The martyrdom of the apostles is something of an extra-biblical addition that isnt actually recorded in the bible or history, so much as it circulated by word of mouth until it became "accepted" as a fact.
- We dont know anything about the life of Christ. We are fairly certain he existed, but his life is completely lost in myth and legend. Was he a good person who preached that people should humble themselves to God? Probably. Did he feed 5000 people with a few fish and two loaves of bread? Probably not. Was he crucified as a political criminal? Probably. Did he reanimate from the dead and begin preaching to people in the streets? Probably not.

Abraham was born about 2091 BC, Isaac born about 2066 BC, Jacob and Esau born about 2006 BC. Jacob fled Haran around 1929 BC. Joseph was born 1915 BC. Moses was born about 1526 BC. David became king of Israel 1010 BC. So you can see the Israelites that Jacob became existed long before you propose.

The real life events Moses recorded himself. If writings existed this old in other cultures, there is no reason it can not also be true in the promise land of Israel. There is no reason to suggest otherwise. This has long since been accepted and no change of view has ever arisen. We can place some trust in our forefathers for the integrity that stands. Have you ever thought why this information remains with us today in the most popular book ever sold? It is because of its truths.

James who is a brother of John is recorded in the Bible as being martyred. For you to say otherwise indicates how out of touch you are. Since there is no reason to doubt the recordings of the martyrdoms by those who knew the apostles such as Polycarp and Clement and so forth in good conscience, and various other writers of which there are many, to suggest otherwise is really without foundation. These are recordings of history, not by oral tradition. What starts off by witnessing through the eyes is transferred orally and then onto written paper. They are actually documented in the earliest church fathers just as you might expect who would take responsibility in sharing this data. I recommend you get Gary Habermas' "The Case for the Resurrection for Jesus Christ" (2004). Awesome proof texts of the primary writers in the first and second century. There is direct connection from person to person from the earliest apostles to the second and third generation of apostles.

There is no possibility of legend, for Paul writes about his meetings with Peter and James and so does Luke for the Jerusalem council in which they agreed on several things. Not only this but Paul was saved about 2 years after Christ died, he saw Christ resurrected as did 11 different group settings. Within 3 years after Paul being saved, he came to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James, so these were very early creeds he taught such as in 1 Cor.15. He was with Barnabas and his travels are recorded on 3 missionary journeys with Timothy, Silas and others.

Since the Stephen and James were put to death in the Bible, and Paul nearly died several times it is recorded, it is not unreasonable to believe early church fathers in the first and second century documenting where and how the apostles died. Nearly all of them were put to death in various ways. Get that highly recommended book.

Jesus made in clear and in no uncertain terms He is God. Jesus said He is the Son of Man and the Son of God. Jews new this to mean He is God, so they killed Him. The apostle are in agreement, saying In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

We know so much about Christ. We have 42 writers within the first 150 years of his life who wrote about him. Did He feed 5000? Of course. Being God, it would be no problem for Him to intervene in His own creation, just like someone who owns a computer can upload software.

Was he seen resurrected as testified by Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude (his two brothers)? Remember these are eyewitnesses accounts who knew Jesus personally: the 12 apostles saw him resurrected, Paul saw him. These are not second hand stories passed down as in other religions. James did not believe his brother was God until after Jesus died and was seen resurrected by his own two eyes. Paul was killing the saints, but they miraculously one day Jesus appeared before Paul in Person, and he could not but be repent and give his life to Christ. Isn't that wonderful? The disciples and the women could literally touch Jesus (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/jesus_resurrection.htm).

Paul even said that if what he and the apostles are saying is false then the many who know of these events could prove otherwise and write about them and make a laughing stalk of them. But none ever did. Nobody denied the empty tomb. Nobody before Christ had a resurrection. Copycats came after His resurrection and they are not well evidenced or with much context. How wonderful that God enters into His own creation to provide salvation. Imagine! Lets say Christ doesn't even return for a billion years. What will always be the most cherished document that gives us comfort? The 66 books of God's Word. Millions of books will be written on Christ, but one book remains. How wise, righteous and holy He is to make Himself so easily known! Thus, leaving you without excuse!

This same power of resurrection is available to all of us who are saved and is a sure promise of our salvation.

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 12:45 AM

Churchwork,
The supernatural elements of Jesus' life make it so difficult to believe. 2000 years ago, people were very superstitious, and they lived in a world where the supernatural was readily observable and obvious. You think that, with all the technology we have now, if the supernatural used to be so plainly evident to people without the aid of scientific instruments, then surely we could detect the supernatural even more readily with instruments!...
... but we dont. Precisely the opposite: the more we study the universe, and the more sensitive our scientific instruments become, we see the universe is really a system of interacting mathematical equations. Billions of experiments are performed every year, some with the expressed purpose of uncovering psychic and supernatural powers, but not even once have we reliably observed any instance of the supernatural. From the point of view of skeptic, its very difficult to believe that the records of Jesus's miracles and displays of the supernatural are actually genuine or even happened at all, simply because the growing implausibility of supernatural powers.
If one is supernatural, then he is outside the natural. Therefore, supernatural occurrences are not surprising events at all. They may even be daily routine. Daily one may be taken aback spiritually by the manifestations in one's life in their spirit being uplifted by Christ.

The supernatural occurrences are deemed objective visions. They actually saw angels. Today people actually see angels through visions. They aren't subjective. An hallucination can not be seen by 11 different group settings. It's not possible, so you know it was real. They did not live in a world where the supernatural was regularly obvious anymore than today. However, we can say that the mind today is more scientific and heady, so it may because of this be less receptive to supernatural communications apart from revelation in the spirit. As the mind has developed in human kind a case can be made for more receptivity to angelic communications. I see no problem with this observation. It is no less real. They obviously saw something and it is conveyed what was seen and heard and felt.

It would not stand to reason that you could detect supernatural events anymore today than before, since instruments ought to never have the power to seep into God's heaven. This would place God somewhat under our observation and intrusion in our microscopes. I don't think God would ever allow that.

Just as in antiquity, the universe is full of equations no more or less today. It is the same universe, the same supernatural events. Often an event is so miraculous not because of the event itself, but the timing of the event that became so saving and precious or was a judgment. For example, if you read the Miracles of Exodus by Colin J. Humphrey's we can explain the cause and effect (I know you are not a big fan of this, lol) of the 10 plagues, how one affected the other like a chain reaction.

Many times too we have seen through scientific observation supernatural occurrences. There are recorded events of people seeing things that had no brain activity in NDE-Near Death Experiences. They describe things outside their body that they could not have known otherwise. This has been documented extensively and can not be overlooked. Again see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas.

The most convincing proof you will find is to rely on the minimal facts approach of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have 11 different group settings which record the seeing of a physically resurrected Jesus and the apostles went to their deaths on this account professing having seen Jesus resurrected.

People don't just die for a lie, but for what they actually believe in and see. And it is one thing to die on second hand knowledge, but a completely different matter to die on first hand eyewitness attestations.

It does not make it difficult to believe at all. Is it so hard to believe that if the human race is going to continue on for millions and billions of years that God would not give a point of ultimate reference for His design. He has done that in the 66 books of His Word which is from my findings 100% all genuine truth.

Considering all these facts it makes it very difficult to be an atheist or agnostic or a believe of any other religion except Christianity. Deism doesn't cut it either because it would be utterly vain.

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 01:00 AM

Churchwork,
- The most respected, mainstream scholars believe that Jesus existed, but that his life is exaggerated by a few zealous followers. If you want to know more about the historical Jesus, and certainly learn a lot more than you would learn reading second-rate apologetics all day, go to your library and pick up A Marginal Jew by John P Meier, The Historical Jesus by Gerd Theissen, The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan, and for a little more background on the development of the bible its worth the time to read Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox.
Most respected scholars don't believe Jesus life was exaggerated, but accept that:

He died by crucifixion and was buried
the disciples sincerely believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them
the church persecutor Paul (outsider skeptic) was suddenly changed
the skeptic James (family skeptic), brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
the tomb was empty
the disciples were in dispair, lost hope, but in seeing his resurrection, they became bold proclaimers
the resurrection was the central message
the church was born and grew from Jerusalem

The early documentation to support this is substantial. There has been no contrary account proposed by skeptics that have been deemed viable to explain the eyetwitness accounts of Jesus and the martyrdom of the apostles in their claims of the resurrection of Christ.

Though not everyone accepts Christ, the scholarly community agrees on these points and for that matter, they can find no logical explanation to provide a natural explanation. That is why Antony Flew who is considered himself the leading scholar in the world for atheism has turned to believing in an uncreated creator, though he still fights with believing in Christ.

All of those books, I recall, you mentioned are in the references and used and quoted by Gary Habermas (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm) in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. He addresses all those books' major concerns. So you need to uplevel yourself to the response to their ideas by reading this book. He is most comprehensive and thorough, and who is considered by many to be the leading scholar on the resurrection. You will love taking the Resurrection Challenge on CD that comes with the book. This book is like his consummating work of many previous books. It is so precise in its delivery I highly recommend it.

Have you heard of the lawyer in the guiness book of records who is reported as having won 245 cases in a row. Well he said that he has never seen a better case than for the death and resurrection of Christ. In other words, if the resurrection is true, you won't be able to provide better evidence than the evidence that has existed these past 1900+ years.

The religio-historical context fits by 40 writers over 1500 years, the miracles, fulfilled prophecies (62 with amazing odds that only God could fulfill) and the reasonableness of it all that we are sinners and sin leads to death and the second death because our souls can't be annihilated in being made in God's image. Therefore, a redemption is needed and no better redemption can be achieved than the salvation of God Himself entering int creation to provide the perfect sacrifice for sins. If you believe in this man who is also God, you are going to be recruited by God into His kingdom to receive the glory of His eternal blessings.

For Christ to enter into His creation now for the first time would be utter confusion and logistically impossible. He would be killed in an instant, cutting short his 3 year ministry which was short enough as it was. I think in those days in Judea and Galilee at least Jesus could escape for a short while those who were trying to kill him. I have talked to a lot of non-Christians about Christ if He were to first enter creation today, and they say to me they feel the world would kill him right quick. What does that say of humanity, their sin nature, hostility to their creator and love for the god of this world who is Satan? Islam for example would kill him the first chance they get.

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 01:29 AM

Churchwork,
I honestly dont expect you pick up any of those, but I would really appreciate it if you knew a little more about your religion. Believe me, I've seen the pattern of belief a million times, and you are just a textbook example of someone who believed the bible was true long before you even had the faintest idea of why you thought it was true or even knew about it from an academic point of view.
I would appreciate it, if you do respond, to learn a little more about your religion as well as my religion. So do get that book (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas, 2004) for it talks about your religion and my religion in the most precise detail possible so you can see the fullest evidence.

Actually, I am quite unlike most people you meet who say they are Christians. I believe God chose me in this way, so I could not be accused effectively like you would accuse others in the way you think they came to Christ. Logically I know that the uncreated had to have created given the 4 Step Proof for God which you have nothing against, so the only question becomes, who is the Creator? Where does He reveal Himself in creation? That answer existed in the One that none could compare to, who is Christ. All the other major religions fail in their logic and conscience. Atheism is utterly destroyed since puff the magic dragon theories of quantum mechanism is utterly mindless. Agnosticism is pretentious, for Jesus said, if you are not for Him, you are against Him. Also if you are agnostic, understand this principle. By saying you are not sure if Jesus is God or if there is no God, what you are doing is at the very minimum, exposing yourself because at the very minimum, you know nothing in nature happens all by itself, so therefore, to deny the uncreated creator, whoever he is, is intellectually dishonest and really atheism in disguise. I love being able to see this. There is in fact no such thing as real agnosticism. All agnosticism is, is atheism.

The pattern you hoped to see fails you since it is dependent on your assumptions which are false in hoping I am like those who you perceive. The evidence for Christ wins out, so any person who wants to be reasonable will receive Christ. Anyone who doesn't want to be reasonable is free to reject Christ. Since there is no better alternative of reality, Christ wins.

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 01:59 AM

Churchwork,
I'm not trying to be condescending, but you're just a garden-variety fundamentalist who believes first and tries to prove later, essentially no different from the fundamentalists of every other religion who do the exact same thing, and you're beliefs are no better off than theirs. Jesus fulfilled just as many prophecies as Mohammed, and there is no argument that you can provide to disprove that claim. Why? Because you're making categorical statements without qualifying them, and there is fundamentally no reason to prefer your categorical statements above a Muslims unqualified categorical statements about his own religion.
You are not unlike any other agnostic or atheist in the same overassuming position of claiming the universe has forever been going on without a cause. I call this the puff the magic dragon faith. Since all things in nature have a cause, then it is not logical to believe that which has a cause is the ultimate cause. This is the lie in your heart, and now you try desperate to prove it by picking the most complicated subject (quantum mechanics far beyond your capacity to understand) to say that therefore it happens all by itself. This is not intelligent, but the big assumption, just like the Roman Church has the big assumption they call Mary being sinless (even though I count no less than 5 time Mary sinned in the Bible alone). Christians have the first hand testimony of those who saw Jesus resurrected and gave their lives to Christ on the cross. What do you have? Puff the magic dragon or a meaningless universe, so you are compelled to do anything you like such as nuke 10 cities without conscience. Christians are constrained by the Holy Spirit to walk by the spirit to the glory of God.

It's not difficult to compare the what the right choice is. I also don't think it is so wrong to receive Christ even though you don't have the best evidences out there like I have of His death, deity and resurrection. It really is quite enough to look at the overwhelming aura of Christianity, the death of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life. To stand up for someone who said they were God, lived as God, and died as God is so compelling, it is very difficult to deny. The most encompassing religion that ever was remains as the guiding beacon in a world of darkness. Many in the faith, especially spiritual Christians testify the deeper their life in Christ gets the more they prayer and study and walk by the Holy Spirit, the more faith increases and proofs are rounded out. Once saved always saved!

Did Mohammed fulfill any prophecies at all? What prophecies? The OT existed centuries before Christ. Mohammed has no documentation before his cave experience and rejection by Israel, no prophecies about him at all are of the need of his hostility to Christ. Jesus fulfilled 62 prophecies dating back before 1000 BC. Mohammed comes along six and a half centuries later and calls Jesus a liar. Does Mohammed all by himself in a cave have any credibility for this claim? The same problem exists for the Mormons, JW's, 7th Day Adventists. Mohammed was a murdere before he wrote the Koran and after. Christ never hurt anyone before or after His Ministry.

I can show the prophecies fulfilled in Christ and I can show testimony of 40 writers about those prophecies over 1500 years in complete harmony. If you think Mohammed can equate to that, I will let you try. Not only is this your big challenge, but you have to account for how Mohammed could alter the Word of God, by claiming something completely opposite about Christ than does the writers of the Bible (eg. see Isaiah 53). Remember, Jesus said He is God, so to say He is not six and a half centuries later doesn't hold much weight now does it?

So Christians have all this tangible evidence (corroboration among people who had the Holy Spirit), but what does Mohammed have? He was a murderer and a pedophile. He alters the Bible six and a half centuries later and none of his miracles are said to occur until over a century after his death. The NT was written within a few decades of Christ's death.

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 02:13 AM

Churchwork,
Of course, if you're like me, then it should be fairly evident that all the gods of religion are false. They are made in the image of man, put man in the center of the universe, and give man an special place above any other animal; these kinds of gods are so obviously manmade fictions that they just cannot be believed. Even worse, the moral prescriptions these gods make are so completely naive (I could give a long long long list of naive morals if you like) that they just cannot come from a being who presumably has all the knowledge, all the wisdom, and the most perfect morals of any being in the universe; but it makes perfect sense if those naive moral commands come from egocentric, superstitious humans. A god might exist, but he certainly doesnt look like the gods of any religion.

Yes, all the gods of religions including yours are false except one. Only Jesus is God. He is God the Son with God the Father and God the Spirit - The Trinity of the Godhead. God's Triune Being is How God reveals Himself to us. When we pray, we pray to the Father through the Son by the Spirit indwelling. When the council of the Godhead created the Father spoke, the Son created and the Spirit executed and renews creation today.

Just like all religions are made in the image of a man or their particular idols, so do you have a religion in the image of your idol which is that puff the magic dragon, which stems from your independency and disobedience to God. Think of it this way: if you believe in puff the magic dragon then you can believe in yourself as entering into existence without a cause and making yourself a god. It's all selfish.

The myths of old are quite unlike the resurrection of Christ and His walking on earth. Myths of old were just myths, not actually God on earth in His creation. Most of these gods were created gods, not question where they came from. You must remember none were claiming a resurrection on parallel with Christ before Christ was resurrected. This was a new turn of events. Moreover, gods of old myths are shoddy in their documentation, sparse at best and their earliest known parchments are a thousand years divorced from their events, so they are of no consideration on pare with Christ. Of all the major religions none can compare to Christianity. Hinduism and Buddhism say if you are sinner you can come back a dog, but if you are a good dog, you can come back as a man again. There is no accountability for sin in this idea so you can keep on sinning because you know you can always come back as a man. Islam says you get to have I think 72 virgins. This is making sex an idol. Christianity says in eternal life there is no procreation for those who have resurrected bodies.

There is really is no legitimate faith than faith in Christ. Faith in self is self-exalting a sinner of agnosticism and atheism.

The only God that could exist is revealed in the Bible, for you can see none more righteous, holy and true. Now that you can see all this evidence and sound reasoning leaves one no choice but to accept Christ, if you don't realize Hell is for you to keep you eternally separated from God and His sons and daughters.

With love, in Christ :)

Churchwork

11-26-2006, 02:33 AM

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!

Juliet

11-27-2006, 04:26 PM

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:

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:

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle) fallacy that logicians call a composition fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

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:

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:

infinity
__
f(x) = \ ( (a^n) * cos( (b^n) * (pi * x) ) )
/_
n = 0
(The function above looks something like this (http://seaotter.phys.tohoku.ac.jp/fractals/self-affine/fig2-2.gif), 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).

- 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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminism). 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 (http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/display_article.html?articleid=212); 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_c lassical_physics):

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.

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 =

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 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/) 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:
"[I]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.)

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 05:22 PM

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 05:40 PM

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.

Juliet

11-27-2006, 05:43 PM

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:

The second problem has to do with how exactly you deduced that moral progress really actually inherits from form to form. You said this:

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.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 05:55 PM

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.

Juliet

11-27-2006, 06:03 PM

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 :eek:

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

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 06:09 PM

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.

The second problem has to do with how exactly you deduced that moral progress really actually inherits from form to form. You said this:

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.

Juliet

11-27-2006, 06:15 PM

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.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 06:49 PM

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.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 07:22 PM

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.
It is not an Infraction at all to cite sources to prove one is not lying, nor did I say this was the case. Do you see how you have falsely accused? Never be amazed by the endless accusations of the evil spirit in your spirit for they are without the love of the Lord. It is better to allow the Holy Spirit to come into your spirit and remove that evil spirit. You are not lying when you post a link to your own forums, for you truly believe in what you believe, just as Satan truly believes in what he believes. So do you see your sin of trying to promote self? This is not humble, but it centered on you as the center of the universe.

The reason it is wrong to always post links to your forums is because self-exaltation was the purpose of so doing and it is not even on topic of the 4 Step Proof of this thread. Surely you can see why it is wrong to promote self which is not at all dealing with the facts of the Proof.

You said "Also, I'm an admin/mod at [removed forum], feel free to stop by and talk to me some more if you feel like it". Whether you are the owner or not, you are the admin of the place you are advertising and most admins I know have part ownership in their own forum at the very least.

You are just trying to be couth and cunning and so you are easily exposed in your petty self which you need deliverance from.

Notice too how this has gotten so far off topic because that is what the evil spirit does with a spirit of dissension to deflect away from the evidence. You tried to deflect by differentiating between actually owning the forum and being the admin of the forum. Don't let your petty self get the better of you.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 07:52 PM

Juliet,

Recommendation: drop the continued unsupported verbiage of "bizarre" in your false claim that failed when you merely self-declared that the 4 Step Proof is cosmological only. Since it was shown this is not the case, then your continued belligerency along this line of reasoning is itself bizarre and ultimately why you got the Infraction. To continue to repeat yourself without responding to it is what Board Etiquette #6 prevents.

Repentance is in order. But since you probably can't repent you will seek to rationalize yourself somehow.

It is better to deal with the parts of the Proof instead of trying to make a false argument that it is the same thing as merely cosmological. Hope this helps you see.

Juliet

11-27-2006, 08:00 PM

The reason it is wrong to always post links to your forums is because self-exaltation was the purpose of so doing and it is not even on topic of the 4 Step Proof of this thread. Surely you can see why it is wrong to promote self which is not at all dealing with the facts of the Proof.

You said "Also, I'm an admin/mod at [removed forum], feel free to stop by and talk to me some more if you feel like it". Whether you are the owner or not, you are the admin of the place you are advertising and most admins I know have part ownership in their own forum at the very least.
No, I dont own any forums, I dont own any part of them. Someone else does, and they gave me admin/mod status, simply because they liked my contributions on other forums along with 3 or 4 others... but I dont own those forums, and I'm not advertising them. I've told you three times already, but you insisted that they were my forums, even when they arent. I've even asked you to remove my infraction, because the basis for the infraction, that I was advertising my forums, turned out to be wrong, but you have yet to remove the infraction.

If I owned those forums, I'd change them completely... but I dont, so I cant.

After a little thought, something occurs to me... there is no way this can be real, this has to be some elaborate parody. I dont own any forums at all, but you are insisting that by posting links to them, I do own them. Well, I've posted a link at [removed forum] to this one here, so I own Biblocality.com forums, and if you dont stop your false satan-inspired accusations, I'm going to ban you from my forums.

Notice too how this has gotten so far off topic because that is what the evil spirit does with a spirit of dissension to deflect away from the evidence. You tried to deflect by differentiating between actually owning the forum and being the admin of the forum. Don't let your petty self get the better of you.
No, its just that, instead of getting an academic response, I get told several times that I'm just acting out because of some need to be a sinner, even when I'm not. You're not a mind reader, but yet you want to state exactly my motivations for my behaviors... and even when I object and tell you I'm motivated by other things, you try to correct me by saying I'm belligerent and hate god, essentially cramming words down my throat that I dont agree with. You should already know that what your saying is false, but you do it anyway... I wonder, is it because you are belligerent?

Theres no point in keeping this thread on topic, its a joke and I've been frustrated to no end by it, simply because of your attitude in this thread. Its one thing to have ones own little pet theories about god, but its another to have those pet theories and have a shallow character.

I've come to the conclusion that you are not a Christian, you're a mockery of your religion and a terrible witness, and you drive more people away from Christ by your own un-Christlike behavior than any atheists arguments against Christianity ever could. You have more arrogance and more pride than any Christian I've ever seen, and no humility at all, and I couldnt bring myself to believe that Heaven, being the most fantastic and wonderful place in the universe, is filled with smug individuals like yourself. Hell is full of smug people like you, thats for sure.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 08:55 PM

Churchwork,
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?
First off, you got Step 1 wrong so you are arguing against something that is not the first step of the Proof. I have already said this, but you overlooked it. So now you want me to defend something that is not the 4 Step Proof. What sense is that? Secondly, it is not a cosmological argument as that mislabels it since it involves the matter of our exponential progression of conscience we observe these past 6000 years. This too was already said, but you keep mislabeling it and misunderstanding it by misreading or just being mindlessly belligerent. That won't do at all.

Now let us review what Step 1 says: If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to be perfected, yet you still sin. This shows there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects, so that it is true the universe was created. On your idea of the need to connect humans to the age of the universe, I already showed how this was done:

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.On your second question, this too was already answered which shows you are not listening. If man is in the universe, he of course is connected to its time in a causal relationship. It doesn't matter when man was created in this causal chain on that it did happen.

I'll explain what I mean in detail below:

While that might sound good to you, its not logically sound. Its a variant of an undistributed middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle) fallacy that logicians call a composition fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition), 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."
It is not an undistributed middle fallacy or a composition fallacy. Let me show you why. In observing today the exponential progression of our conscience these past 6000 years, we know this is a fact. But we still sin. What we can then say is that the full time alloted to reaching our pinnacle and beyond has not been reached to be without sin. Even if we had an eternity to accomplish this result which we who are saved are certainly on course to do, it would still not be enough time, thus we know not only we were created, but so was the universe.

It doesn't matter when man was created in the causal chain, because man in that chain is still derived from its predecessor.

The challenge for you in your misapplication of the undistributed middle fallacy is to apply the variables effectively which you failed to do. You would think you would have at least tried to do this, but you didn't. Here are some variables.

A=universe
B=humans
C=sin
D=exponential progression of our conscience
E=eternity of the past
F=uniqueness of mankind from all other creatures known
G=God
H=when man was created
I=when the universe started

Now let's see if you can succeed.

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.

This does not apply to Step 1 since the first step is not saying if you are a conscious being for example, but that we still sin even though there has been an exponential progression in our conscience which given the eternity of the past or even an approximation of it, based on that exponential progression, we would still not be sinning right now. So God created.

We are only dealing with causes and effects. We are not saying the universe has a conscience, for it non-sentient. We are not saying because man is sentient or that his conscience is increasing exponentially that the universe has a conscience to increase exponential. Your philosophical ideas don't apply to the 4 Step Perfect Proof of God as God designed.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) for a little more detailed explanation.
Given that a single note is not the property of the whole musical, does not detract from Step 1 in examining if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Just because humans are in the universe and we don't make up the whole universe, does not mean the exponential progression of our conscience is not in play or that cause and effect is violated.

Moreover, we are not trying to prove humans are the whole universe or even party of the universe, only that in the matter of cause and effect our body was formed from dust. And since we still sin you know there could not have been an eternity of the past of causes and effects because based on that exponential progression, we would be without sin by now.

Suffice it to say, humans have a body that came from the "dust" (Gen. 2.7) just like the Bible says. The mind of God in the Bible agrees more with science than you do, after all, science exists because of the Word of God.

So now you can see how your argument is wrong and why the progression of our conscience is connected with the whole universe from which our bodies were derived from the the past, except that it is a past that had to be created by the uncreated given the fact that we still sin and nothing in nature happens all by itself. All things have a cause and effect. No evidence shows otherwise.

We are not concerned with philosophical concepts such as emergence since we are not trying to prove that humans are the universe. We only need show that in the laws of cause and effect we would not exist if there was not a preceding cause so we abide in those laws and any theory that does not is a false theory.

Sorites paradox does not apply to the 4 Step Proof since we are dealing with causes and effects, that is all, not the paradox of a heap.

Try to get back on topic of cause and effect. By bringing up all these other things that have no relevance shows you are just confusing yourself and that you are not willing to deal precisely with the Proof itself. When you are unspecific and vague, it will get you every time. Satan is the author of confusion.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 10:30 PM

Juliet,

We ought to agree there is an exponential progression in our conscience, and this is not disputed yet. Now compare this to the proposed idea there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects for the universe which always fail in its assessment.

If there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then there has been an eternity before today such that anything within that eternity approaches so close to eternity that it is deemed as having an eternity to develop.

Ergo, it does not matter when man was created in the causal chain to prove that there has not been an eternity of the past. All you need know is man's creation would have approached infinity from the past and as such man would now be without sin, yet we still sin, showing that man had to have been created and there could not have been an eternity of the past.

If the position for an approximation of the eternity of the past fails then it is so close to eternity itself of the past, there could not have been an eternity of the past. To suggest otherwise would be splitting hairs to the point of fallacy by the petty self.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 11:50 PM

Churchwork,
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...
No. That's not what it meant. Yes it is true that man's moral improvement does affect things around him more positively, but this is not the point. The point is that because man began in the past and if there was an eternity of the past, then man would have begun in the approximation of the eternity of the past. By comparing this big fat assumption of an eternity of the past to seeing man's exponential progression in conscience today these past 6000 years, we know that big fat assumption is a lie because man would have had an eternity to be perfected, so it is true that man was created 6000 years ago and the universe was created at some point too. If the approximation to eternity fails, so does the eternity itself since they are both essentially taken as eternity. Man was created in God's image about 6000 years ago. Before 13.7 billion years ago, the Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit held council to create man in His image. Talk about patience!

... 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.
It is not nonsense that man influences his surroundings. Eternally when man kills off a species it has eternal consequences into the very fabric of the universe. Your problem is you only see naturalistically. Since nothing in nature is without a cause then it is the uncreated that caused the universe and by definition that is supernaturally, beyond your naturalism, so it would be illogical to seek after a naturalistic explanation for all things all the time.

When man dies and his remains are put into the cosmos this only speaks of his body with not much significance as man goes back to dust. It pays no attention to his soul with its functions of mind, will and emotion; nor does it account for his spirit with its functions of intuition, communion and conscience.

The soul and spirit of man are to be resurrected as Jesus as resurrected in due time. There will be consequences for any who never felt those consequences while still in the body of flesh and blood.

When man and woman procreate a new living soul is born. Who can deny the genetic influences as well as the free-will choice afforded to that soul? This is how that moral form to form is transferred. Down to the fourth generation God said some sin would be transferred as we are all born into sin. It is not the exponential progression in dust, but the exponential progression in conscience that proves the case. Since you are made in God's image, you will never cease to exist. Just because your body goes back to the grave does nothing to your spirit and soul as you will await a newly resurrected body.

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.
Not at all, this is just your usual misreading and perhaps you just can't understand because your spirit is dead to God and that just how you wish to remain.

The exponential increase in conscience is from the approximation to infinity of the past as though there was not even any dust prior to the creating of man, because it was deemed as infinitely in the past. This is a very special principle in approximating infinity.

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

Make a distinction between moral progress and exponential improvement in conscience. The former exists because of the latter exponential approaching infinity. Moral progress comes from the inner man infused by the Holy Spirit and common grace. It is better to see the root which is the inward man as opposed to the outward only. In other words the outward does not happen all by itself.

You don't have to concern yourself with all progressions, but just observe the major overlying trend of things that really matter and are of substance.

Every person knows what is better by common grace. It is better today that we don't throw our children in the mouth of fiery god called Molech to literally burn children alive. It was not right then, but we don't allow it all today. Sure, women kill their children today in their wombs like throwing the child into the bosom of Molech, but it is an improvement. It is better to have only one spouse, not multiple spouses. It is better to prevent children under 10 years of age working in factories. It is better today that even if the state executes someone they don't do it by cutting their head off or in public hangings or burning them to death. That is just cruel and sick. I am sure you can thing of lots of other examples.

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.
Don't say I have not addressed these issues, for they have all been addressed. I am basically just repeating what I said before, so again, you are accusing falsely and overlooking what was already said due to your own belligerency and shutting your mind down.

Anything which approximates infinity is deemed as infinity. Whatever other kinds of limits you want to introduce you are free to do so, but I will let you do so if you have anything. By the way, I received honors in calculus in high school, so again, your accusation as usual are false. You really should try to not be so presumptuous, for it shows your pride through and through. Humility does not generate such presumptuous.

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?

We don't need to get into a grand investigative study. We can leave that for scholars to produces such research papers. It is enough for us to cite various examples throughout history to see a discernible improvement in conscience. If a child or an old man needed the research paper to be saved, how unrighteous that would be.

So your argument is riff with the petty self. Spirituality is never so complicated as people thing, but never quite so simple either.

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.
It is not hard to see that in all the causes and effects, if there was an eternity of the past, would lead to man being created in the eternity of the past, such that his creation approximates infinity too. No such calculation is needed other than to say this.

As far as you are concerned is indeed the problem, because you are letting your petty self get in the way of basic reasoning. Someone who is puffed up can't see the simplest things. He can't see the forest through the trees. You know how a small child can easily believe in God, but a grown man confuses himself to the ends of the earth. This is a perfect example of unsalvation.

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:

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.

The above formula does not represent the reality of what we see every day. Put a 1 in front of that 1/3, and that represents more of what I am talking about. What we see millennia after millennia is substantial change in conscience so that it has an exponential flavor to it and it is comparable to our scientific development somewhat to help you get a grasp.

In 1000 years from now, murder rates per capita will be even less than they are now. Now they are even less than what they were 1000 years prior. These are very quantifiable numbers, and you will be able to see the exponetialness of it all by collecting this data.

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:

infinity
__
f(x) = \ ( (a^n) * cos( (b^n) * (pi * x) ) )
/_
n = 0
(The function above looks something like this (http://seaotter.phys.tohoku.ac.jp/fractals/self-affine/fig2-2.gif), 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.)

Taken as a whole, the progression is exponentially upward and can be quantified in sweeping variables such as the murder rate per capita which is probably the most powerful indicator of them all that I can think of. All morality seems to sum itself up in this number more or less. You said you can argue for morality being random, but if that is the case surely you could give some argument to make your case. Since the evidence cited so far shows your idea is wrong, take a deeper look at yourself, and realize you made a position but then stopped short there and left it as a self-declaration. This is the mindlessness of the evil spirit in your spirit that needs no reasons for its suppositions.

Be intellectually honest with yourself. If you don't have anything substantial for your claims then be willing to drop those ideas or at least put them to the side instead of committing yourself to them. That's like all your life wanting to be a great hockey player, but still could never even make it into the NHL. You have to finally learn to accept that if you have no evidence for your view, maybe it is because there is none. You will feel wonderful release when you finally let go of the lie.

That is a pretty chart, but that is all it is. It was based on an assumption you had, not actual reasoning as the various examples that I gave you show the exponential progression of conscience. If what we see is the exponential progression of conscience and that is our best evidence so far, then there is no reason to come up with another theory because any other theory has nothing backing it, but may make for a good movie.

So you can see what Christianity has that you don't have. We have actual evidence. All you have is self-proclamation. I find that most unfortunate that an atheist needs no reason for ideas, but relies just on blind faith. It's like someone always answering a question on math exam incorrectly by saying 2x3=5. They get it wrong every time, even though they are constantly corrected. There is no rime or reason for such mindlessness, it just is, and you have a free-will to be obtuse when you ought to know better.

Churchwork

11-27-2006, 11:50 PM

Churchwork,
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...
No. That's not what it meant. Yes it is true that man's moral improvement does affect things around him more positively, but this is not the point. The point is that because man began in the past and if there was an eternity of the past, then man would have begun in the approximation of the eternity of the past. By comparing this big fat assumption of an eternity of the past to seeing man's exponential progression in conscience today these past 6000 years, we know that big fat assumption is a lie because man would have had an eternity to be perfected, so it is true that man was created 6000 years ago and the universe was created at some point too. If the approximation to eternity fails, so does the eternity itself since they are both essentially taken as eternity. Man was created in God's image about 6000 years ago. Before 13.7 billion years ago, the Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit held council to create man in His image. Talk about patience!

... 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.
It is not nonsense that man influences his surroundings. Eternally when man kills off a species it has eternal consequences into the very fabric of the universe. Your problem is you only see naturalistically. Since nothing in nature is without a cause then it is the uncreated that caused the universe and by definition that is supernaturally, beyond your naturalism, so it would be illogical to seek after a naturalistic explanation for all things all the time.

When man dies and his remains are put into the cosmos this only speaks of his body with not much significance as man goes back to dust. It pays no attention to his soul with its functions of mind, will and emotion; nor does it account for his spirit with its functions of intuition, communion and conscience.

The soul and spirit of man are to be resurrected as Jesus as resurrected in due time. There will be consequences for any who never felt those consequences while still in the body of flesh and blood.

When man and woman procreate a new living soul is born. Who can deny the genetic influences as well as the free-will choice afforded to that soul? This is how that moral form to form is transferred. Down to the fourth generation God said some sin would be transferred as we are all born into sin. It is not the exponential progression in dust, but the exponential progression in conscience that proves the case. Since you are made in God's image, you will never cease to exist. Just because your body goes back to the grave does nothing to your spirit and soul as you will await a newly resurrected body.

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.
Not at all, this is just your usual misreading and perhaps you just can't understand because your spirit is dead to God and that just how you wish to remain.

The exponential increase in conscience is from the approximation to infinity of the past as though there was not even any dust prior to the creating of man, because it was deemed as infinitely in the past. This is a very special principle in approximating infinity.

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

Make a distinction between moral progress and exponential improvement in conscience. The former exists because of the latter exponential approaching infinity. Moral progress comes from the inner man infused by the Holy Spirit and common grace. It is better to see the root which is the inward man as opposed to the outward only. In other words the outward does not happen all by itself.

You don't have to concern yourself with all progressions, but just observe the major overlying trend of things that really matter and are of substance.

Every person knows what is better by common grace. It is better today that we don't throw our children in the mouth of fiery god called Molech to literally burn children alive. It was not right then, but we don't allow it all today. Sure, women kill their children today in their wombs like throwing the child into the bosom of Molech, but it is an improvement. It is better to have only one spouse, not multiple spouses. It is better to prevent children under 10 years of age working in factories. It is better today that even if the state executes someone they don't do it by cutting their head off or in public hangings or burning them to death. That is just cruel and sick. I am sure you can thing of lots of other examples.

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.
Don't say I have not addressed these issues, for they have all been addressed. I am basically just repeating what I said before, so again, you are accusing falsely and overlooking what was already said due to your own belligerency and shutting your mind down.

Anything which approximates infinity is deemed as infinity. Whatever other kinds of limits you want to introduce you are free to do so, but I will let you do so if you have anything. By the way, I received honors in calculus in high school, so again, your accusation as usual are false. You really should try to not be so presumptuous, for it shows your pride through and through. Humility does not generate such presumptuous.

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?

We don't need to get into a grand investigative study. We can leave that for scholars to produces such research papers. It is enough for us to cite various examples throughout history to see a discernible improvement in conscience. If a child or an old man needed the research paper to be saved, how unrighteous that would be.

So your argument is riff with the petty self. Spirituality is never so complicated as people thing, but never quite so simple either.

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.
It is not hard to see that in all the causes and effects, if there was an eternity of the past, would lead to man being created in the eternity of the past, such that his creation approximates infinity too. No such calculation is needed other than to say this.

As far as you are concerned is indeed the problem, because you are letting your petty self get in the way of basic reasoning. Someone who is puffed up can't see the simplest things. He can't see the forest through the trees. You know how a small child can easily believe in God, but a grown man confuses himself to the ends of the earth. This is a perfect example of unsalvation.

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:

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.

The above formula does not represent the reality of what we see every day. Put a 1 in front of that 1/3, and that represents more of what I am talking about. What we see millennia after millennia is substantial change in conscience so that it has an exponential flavor to it and it is comparable to our scientific development somewhat to help you get a grasp.

In 1000 years from now, murder rates per capita will be even less than they are now. Now they are even less than what they were 1000 years prior. These are very quantifiable numbers, and you will be able to see the exponetialness of it all by collecting this data.

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:

infinity
__
f(x) = \ ( (a^n) * cos( (b^n) * (pi * x) ) )
/_
n = 0
(The function above looks something like this (http://seaotter.phys.tohoku.ac.jp/fractals/self-affine/fig2-2.gif), 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.)

Taken as a whole, the progression is exponentially upward and can be quantified in sweeping variables such as the murder rate per capita which is probably the most powerful indicator of them all that I can think of. All morality seems to sum itself up in this number more or less. You said you can argue for morality being random, but if that is the case surely you could give some argument to make your case. Since the evidence cited so far shows your idea is wrong, take a deeper look at yourself, and realize you made a position but then stopped short there and left it as a self-declaration. This is the mindlessness of the evil spirit in your spirit that needs no reasons for its suppositions.

Be intellectually honest with yourself. If you don't have anything substantial for your claims then be willing to drop those ideas or at least put them to the side instead of committing yourself to them. That's like all your life wanting to be a great hockey player, but still could never even make it into the NHL. You have to finally learn to accept that if you have no evidence for your view, maybe it is because there is none. You will feel wonderful release when you finally let go of the lie.

That is a pretty chart, but that is all it is. It was based on an assumption you had, not actual reasoning as the various examples that I gave you show the exponential progression of conscience. If what we see is the exponential progression of conscience and that is our best evidence so far, then there is no reason to come up with another theory because any other theory has nothing backing it, but may make for a good movie.

So you can see what Christianity has that you don't have. We have actual evidence. All you have is self-proclamation. I find that most unfortunate that an atheist needs no reason for ideas, but relies just on blind faith. It's like someone always answering a question on math exam incorrectly by saying 2x3=5. They get it wrong every time, even though they are constantly corrected. There is no rime or reason for such mindlessness, it just is, and you have a free-will to be obtuse when you ought to know better.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 12:43 AM

Churchwork,
You havent provided an explanation for why we are being perfected, rather than just modified in trivial and apparently random ways.
Not modified nor trivial. Is it trivial that the murder rate per capita is going down at an exponential rate even inspite of the major wars of the 20th century! Exponential progression is a perfecting. It is visible, knowable and fully documented by scholars who study such things. Don't just shut your mind down. And stop with the mindless self-proclamations, for that is the character of the evil spirit in your spirit. After something has been shown to you over and over and you keep denying it for no reason, this is your obstinacy and ignorance like Satan himself. The difference between you and Satan is rendered in one vital fact: Satan can never be saved as an angelic being, but you can yet be saved. Trust a Christian when they tell you that you have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit, thus allowing you to be saved if you give your life to Christ.

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 perceived 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).

Your scope is too small. You can't just pick pockets of time, for that is too small a sample. Women have not been able vote for 5900 years. Now women can vote. This is deemed as an exponential achievement.

Since man was made for woman and woman was made for man, homosexuality is an obvious sin of lustful perversion and so is bestiality, and so is S&M. The calculation of significance is as usual on a per capita basis. The rate of homosexuality is going down. Again, look at your proclamation that you think it is an improvement that more men stick their genitals up other men's anus's or that more women share dildos. I am glad your future is not reality. It is unhealthy and damages your spirit. Think of the children raised in such environments. Such sin could manifest itself to compel a person to do these things to the fourth generation perhaps. Sin has far reaching consequences.

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.

It should be clear for it has already been stated many times. You're just being belligerent following in the footsteps of your father Satan. The several indicators are amply supplied as significant measures.

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.

Since I did not overlook something yet, doesn't sound like you are about to introduce something for the first time that I overlooked. You are always misreading. I am not saying we will be perfected over the course of eternity, but that IF we had an eternity to perfected we would have been perfected. Obviously we don't need an eternity, but if we had it is more than ample. The human mind does not need to store an infinite amount of data to be perfected in God's eyes. No one can say the length of time it takes to reach perfection. That would make them God, for only God has this ability. All we can say is there is an exponential progress going on. However close it approximates eternity is irrelevant. What is significant is that if there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, wherever our creation did begin, it would be deemed approximating eternity since it falls into backdrop of eternity itself if eternity of the past existed. It does not. Ergo, God created both man and the universe. He even took at least 13.7 billion years to create the body from dust.

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.

It is a false assumption there will always be ignorance. Since the exponential progression in conscience is our witness, you can therefore see it in approaching a state of sinlessness. There will always be room for ignorance for you in ultimately being separated into hell, because of your own uncaring mind and choice to shut your mind down in disobedience to God. But that is your choice. But once you are in hell you will truly know you belong there. You may be deluding yourself now, but all in good time.

Since the exponential progression in conscience is proven, it is not an assumption. For all in tense and purposes a 99.9999% approximation is close enough, and you should not rule your petty self over some minuscule incompletion. I swear your petty self is going to eat you alive in retardation as will your self-declarations and mindless proclamations after the evidence was already given to you. This warrants an Infraction, because you can't keep saying something is assumed after the evidence is given. That is not tolerated. It is like a baby having a tantrum not having his way. He is in his feelings only.

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.

There is no need to hold an infinite amount of data to be perfected. How silly. Whatever God ordains to be sinlessness is the point that will be reached given the exponential progression in conscience we observe.

To be a child born no longer without sin, but does not know anything, does not mean he is ignorant. He is developing accordingly and appropriate according to God's design, but in a state of sinlessness when it is reached in the saved. Because there is no sin, there will be no death in the new earth.

I see what your problem is, for you are stuck in your head and you don't realize you have a spirit also. Read this first chapter of The Spiritual Man (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoulbody.htm) to know you also have a spirit in addition to a rationalizing soul. This will help you wake up from your deep slumber. You will begin to realize that your outer man is faulty even though it may think it is reasonable. Once you are regenerated you will be amazed at all the revelation you receive from the Holy Spirit of how utterly corrupted you were. Even before salvation, you know you are sinner to come to the cross, and if done according to God's standards, He will give you the gift of eternal life.

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.

Given the explanation to your misreasoning and approach in thinking about these things, we can render your idea false and of no account as was shown. You actually don't need an eternity to be perfected, but if you did, and yet you still sin, given the exponential progression in conscience, you know that there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. You would know for certainty both man and the universe were created. The real world and Word depicts this, not your fantasy and movie-like idea of an eternity of the past of cause and effects, called puff the magic dragon, now you see it, now you don't. How silly. Since nothing in nature causes itself, therefore the uncreated did create! The limitations you mentioned are not applicable since the conditions you mentioned to define those limitations are not real, rendering the limitations as faulty conclusions. You don't need to have infinite knowledge to be perfected. It does not stand to reason just because a child is born, and still growing, that that child is not perfected in a state of sinlessness when that point is reached in mankind. Jesus for example was born in the womb of a woman who was a sinner, but Jesus nonetheless himself was without sin showing that it is our portion as firstfruits who are saved today to be with God in eternity.

I feel somewhat sad for you because someone who has not gone through all the efforts of reviling God, would have been saved much sooner, yet you still are not saved. This indicates how bad a person you really are as you say you have been at this for years. This makes it virtually impossible for you to be born-again, but there is still perhaps a 0.1% chance. God can move mountains.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 01:17 AM

Churchwork,
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.
Don't just self-proclaim something you have no evidence for in your accusation. Don't you know you do this by the evil spirit in your spirit for he has the same accusatory tone and needs no evidence in his vague proclamations.

In the matter of heat death, you nor I know if the universe is closed or open, so we can render no definitive conclusions. But the evidence thus far indicates a never ending expansion, because we know scientifically speaking the dark energy is pushing out the gravity of dark matter and matter at an ever increasing rate. This is a fact agreed to by scientists as they measure the increasing expansion of the universe. There is no reason this can't go on forever. Even so, if there was heat death this would not prevent resurrection out of heat death. And perhaps by the time that happens we the resurrected saved would know how to subsist in another model having gained great knowledge with God and the Lamb at the center of the new city.

By mentioning heat death, you were not being generous, but actually quite evil, for think about it. Your reasoning for this supposition was to conclude annihilation. You may think annihilation is a way out for you, but I assure you whether you like it or not, you will be resurrected. The only question is, will it be for the new city or hell.

It should be noted string theory and multiverses don't violate Scripture either as best as we can tell, because all a multiverse happens to be is the same natural phenomenon in different loafs of bread and strings are just the building blocks of nature. One scientist on a PBS program said that string theory suggests that if you push long enough on an object you could actually go right through it. This is grounds for resurrection. As gravity is being lost in our universe and we are unsure of where it is going, we think it is actually such a weak force in our universe it is escaping the universe, also showing another possible mode of resurrection.

String theory is the cutting edge and combines G (General relativity) and EM (Electro Magnetism), which scientist combine to call GEM. And so heat death as you admit is not likely since GR can not stand on its own, but today GEM combines the weak force of gravity with the strong force of EM into a workable theory of a multiverse. There would be 10 universes altogether according to the theory. 3 for our space and 1 for time, then 6 others universes, so the theory goes.

Even so, to rely on a conclusive solution on things so complicated is not a reasonable thing to do. We should be able to solve such mysteries of whether there is an eternity of the past or not by simple observations, because if God exists, He would have provided a relatively easy proof and that is the 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible.

Science can neither confirm nor deny the open or closed system, or a final model on all creation, but it does look like GEM is the solution so far (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1089&highlight=relativity). In fact science itself may be limited because it can't even prove itself.

Whether the universe is closed or open is not mutually exclusive with the exponential progression of our conscience. Moreover, this exponential progression of our conscience is not a limit as you say, but it is exponential. This is what we see these past 6000 years. This is the very thing you can't disprove and my evidence far outweighs your no evidence.

I tend to side with the strength of the facts and evidence. You should try it.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 01:36 AM

Churchwork,
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.
You contradict yourself. Don't say it is not wrong per se then say it doesn't work. Be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). It either works or doesn't work. Since there is no issue you attempt that was not dealt with and answered adequately, then Step 1 stands. Moral progress is not what we are after so much as the exponential progression of our conscience. This was shown by various examples. You do not need to cross every i and dot ever t to render a conclusion. You only need look at the sweeping major changes these past 6000 years.

The exponential progression in conscience is less sin. This has already been defined, so that your overlooking this shows your obstinacy. By observing various examples, you can see the upward progression is exponential. You don't even have to calculate the exact exponential rate, but simply observe the general trend. All exponential progressions tend toward infinity when they have no end in site as they get steeper and steeper. It is like investing $10,000 in a stock of Warren Buffet 40 years ago and discovering it is worth $400 million or whatever the latest figures are. Since the evidence is for an exponential progression in conscience such as seeing less murders per capita, to think we are on a moral decline is irrational. Don't just rely on assumed feelings, for feelings are oscillating and undependable. Look at the facts. Satan will use feelings to deceive, so be weary. Since a man and a woman procreate this is generating a new life and the genetics are transferred from the parental form to the form of a child which recreating anew each time it happens. What we have shown is that humans have sinned for a finite amount of time that we are aware of since Adam in the backdrop of an exponential progression in our conscience. Therefore, what we can say as a result is that if we had an eternity to be perfected without sin, we would have certainly done so by now considering the exponential progression we see in our conscience. Since we still sin, you know that both we were created and so was the universe because our existence in the backdrop of a supposed eternity of the past would render an approximation to eternity in the past for humankind. Ergo, Step 1 teaches us from God's Word that God did create! After 4000 years we see the Holy Spirit indwell men and women for the first time ever when Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and raised for the Holy Spirit to indwell us. Praise the Lord! We are no longer under the law but live by the Spirit of the law as Jesus came to fill up the law.

Step 1 stands. I must reiterate so there is perfect clarity. Step 1 says considering the exponential progression in our conscience seen these past 6000 years, it would not take an eternity to be perfected without sin, yet we still sin, showing that obviously we did not have an eternity to be perfected, because if we did, we certainly would be without sin by now. Therefore, God created. Any approximation to infinity is close enough of when man was created who's body was created out of the dust and so becomes an intricate part of creation.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 02:51 AM

Churchwork,
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).

Step 1 shows the universe was created by the uncreated. Step 2 also shows the universe was created by the uncreated. They both show the same thing but in two different ways. One looks at sin and conscience, while the other looks at the fact that all things in nature have a cause, so the ultimate cause must be the uncreated being.

I don't think Step 2 is any more stronger today than it ever was even though there has been leaps and bounds in scientific progress. Jesus said we would do amazing things far greater than he did, and scientific progress is certainly included. One could make an argument for the acceptance that people were more prone to accept God because of the simple fact that they were simple and could easily see one thing always led to another. But today, man has fancy theories that puff up self, so much so he even believes in puff the magic dragon theories that things just happen all by themselves. Such pride can render such absurd conclusions.

Everything having a cause is certainly just as much true in yesteryear as it is today. Free-will is bound by rules of determinism which is to say that free-will ultimately has its cause too (both in origin and process as the person may be influenced by God, self or Satan) and that cause is God made us in His image with a free-will to have free-choice. This determinism does nothing to diminish free-will of yesteryear when it was written down by Moses in Gen. 1.26,27 we were made in God's image. And Abel was recorded as giving a free-will offering, and John 3.16 is given to advise us we have a choice.

Determinism means everything has a cause and effect and can be determined by God in His infinite foreknowledge because He is all-knowing. It is all accomplished according to His holiness and righteousness.

And determinism (laws of cause and effect) do not break down at the quantum level, just because you can't know all causes and effects. That is like saying, because you are not God to be able to see all things, therefore it must happen all by itself like puff the magic dragon. That is illogical. Men did not know the sun was the center of the solar system, but finally realized it by observing various causes. An atheist is someone who is still thinking the earth is flat because he can't see the cause of the motions of the solar system around the sun yet. Silly. One word depicts this overassuming attitude: pride! And pride because the evidence speaks so much to the contrary.

Thus, nothing was said of sufficient value by Juliet the atheist to have any basis for atheism.

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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

This is a strawman argument you are using, for to think the process of choosing is separate from the free-will choice given by God is merely your attempt at trying to be cunning and couth. This is a logical fallacy by your misrepresenting my position. My position covers any process of free-choice ultimately given by God. Hallelujah!

Since you don't define this change of subject but just self-declare it, then this is more of your acting like the devil in false accusations. You did mention free-will by saying it "is not bound by determinism," yet determinism is the law of cause and effect for all things, so let go of your doubletongue when you said you said nothing of the origin of free-will, because you have just mentioned that free-will is not bound by a cause of determinism. Your statement is false since free-will does have its cause. By the Holy Spirit it is so easy when someone speaks out the side of their face as have you done. Therefore, your underlined accusation is a false one as usual. The cause is the very fact that it is made in God's image! Just like in quantum mechanics we often can only speak of probabilities, so it is with man's free-will, still ultimately caused. Just because something has a probability does not mean it is without a cause of being afforded the free-choice and to employ its own processes and receive from God or not. How silly. The very right to a probability has embedded within it principles for probability. Just like a 20 sided die can come up any number from 1 to 20, it is because the die is a certain shape to allow for this to happen (it is a righteous die). So has God designed quantum mechanics. He can also foresee the outcome, not only the probability of it. He can take into account all probabilities to know the outcomes according to His righteousness and holiness. This makes God far beyond any expectation you may have of His greatness. Under all probabilities is a root cause, such as the die falls a certain way. But who throws the die? God does. How does He throw it? He throws it perfectly to allow us fall the way we may. Of course I responded to your argument. As I already wrote:

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.
So as we see here your argument failed you.Therefore, determinism stands in God's infinite foreknowledge. Though we have free-will and there is a cause and effect in all things, God has infinite foreknowledge (Rom. 8.29) to foresee our free-choice.

The origin of free-will is a cause. It does not happen all by itself. You are talking in a doubletongue, for you had written already, irrationally,

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.)
That there is always a cause and effect does not violate free-will, but substantiates it for free-will does not come from nothing, but is caused, and the only possible cause for a free-will is God. No other explanation is provided or accounted for. My response was:

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.Don't blame God for your false predestination since it is your false view of reality, not a part of God's plan. Accept true Biblical predestination, which is God's way of salvation.

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.
Since the origin of free-will and the making of free-choices all have their origins, ie causes, no free-choice is undetermined. The first giving of a free-choice is a cause and the act of choosing also has its cause which is inherent of the right to free-choice being made in God's image. You certainly could never separate the two, after all, God does not allow any such separation. By denying being made in God's image would never cut it since we have a free-will which exists because the uncreated caused it and allows its processes to unfold according to His righteousness allowances.

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.
Determinism says all things have a cause and effect. Free-choice exist within that framework and abides in this principle. However difficult it is for you fathom all things having a cause and effect and our having a free-choice makes no difference. These are both realities and laws of life. Having a free-choice is no exception to the rule of determinism, for they are both completely compatible. We are made in God's image. So the statement remains true still all things have a cause and effect and man's free-will is no exception. All man's choice is built up in being made in God's image. I concede nothing when I said, "Similarly, in God foreseeing all events does not infringe on our free-will. We still choose." Our determined free will has a cause, and that cause is in God making us in His image to have the choice. It is determined because it is caused by God making us in His image. Since it is determined, then Step 2 remains true, as I said from the beginning. Amen.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 03:34 AM

Churchwork,
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.
I only state that since the odds are against you by a margin at least less than 1 in a trillion, you would be the worse gambler that ever lived. Someone who needs no evidence like that is quite pretentious don't you think? General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't change this at all. On the contrary, the evidence all sways against you, because in the most complicated things in history, we have learned to conquer, we discover there always was ultimately a cause to them. Since no scientific effort ever came up with any evidence for puff the magic dragon theories, we must realize that someone who fabricates such an idea is not operating on all cylinders. What a vain life you live to spend all this time trying to rationalize such a lie. You will suffering the consequences.

The first of large objects is deterministic and so is the second. There is no reason to think otherwise. Just because an object is really small makes no difference. How silly. Now I have brought this up several times, but you just keep repeating yourself like a clanging bell and don't respond to what I have said. This is shutting your mind down. And how vain, just because you pick the most complicated thing so far away from being able to investigate that we may never know for that matter because of course there will always be some thing God keeps to Himself. This is not humility but borders on real and tangible evil to claim something happens all by itself. You live by this principle, for that is atheism. Evil to the bone! Only hell can handle you.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminism). 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 (http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/display_article.html?articleid=212); 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.
I consider all avenues of information, but I don't make big fat assumptions full of pride without evidence such as "acausal events in the quantum world." Do understand that is pride and arrogance that thinks just because you can't see the cause there must not be a cause. Such an idea has always been wrong in the past, so why should it not be wrong again! The science of quantum indeterminacy is not studying acausal, but is rather to seek out the cause, because scientists know in some of the most difficult areas in the past that were solved, a cause was finally determined. All things with uncertain outcomes only means we don't know the actual cause yet. Just because I see two people running in a sprint and I can only attribute a certain probability to one runner winning more often than the other, does not mean there is not ultimately real causes for why this is the case. I feel like I am talking to a 5 year old.

Because on the electron level, we don't know how it works exactly and thus can not predicted with certainty, does not mean there isn't real deterministic things going on there. To think otherwise is just nonsense. If a scientist thought that, then he might as well pack up his books and go home. It is a never ending search to find the cause and we just might uproot some of these root causes to some of these most difficult questions which we know for a fact have a deterministic cause, since this has been the precedence found on both a large scale and small scale. No exceptions.

At the very least, its worth mentioning that quantum physics need not be necessarily indeterministic, see the wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_c lassical_physics):
With probability of greater than a trillion to one, you can be very confident quantum physics is deterministic. Though we never know anything really with 100% certainty, trillion to 1 odds are pretty good in accepting that all things are deterministic on all levels, sizes and shapes.

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.

Since the probability of quantum physics being indeterministic is with such low probability, it is not even worth considering in a thousand thousand life times. If it were true that quantum physics was indeterministic that would violate the principle that nothing is ever seen in nature on any scale that is without a cause; therefore, God created, which is the truth of Step 2. Nothing you stated previously would suggest indeterminism would be compliant with the laws of physics.

- 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 =

pi = 4 - 3/4 + 5/4 - 7/4 + ...

infinity
__ (n*2 + 1)^(-1^n)
pi = 4 + \ ----------------
/_ 4
n = 1
It does not follow that the fact of quantum mechanics being deterministic, then it need no cause at all. Since the universe has a cause in all its parts because it is deterministic, then nothing in nature itself can be the ultimate cause. Therefore, the universe had to have been created by what we call that which is not a natural cause, but that which is a supernatural uncreated cause. And none meet that qualification except God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. Praise the Lord!

This is explicitly stated with perfect clarity and is Step 2 in the 4 Step Perfect Proof of God of the Bible.

So your sin remains to merely self-declare a contradiction by claiming non-deterministic virtual particles that happen all by themselves while at the same time saying the universe is deterministic. This is the sin of 1 Tim. 3.8, be "not doubletongued"! A sinner loves his double tongue and mindless contradictions because he himself is a walking and self-righteous contradiction who tries to self-exalt himself while rejecting God who can exalt infinitely higher than he could ever achieve on his own.

The energy that gives rise to any so-called virtual particles has itself a cause of some other energy and so on and so forth. But this can't go on for an eternity in the past because nothing in nature ultimately causes itself. And the laws of math which the universe is governed by themselves have a cause too. They did not just puff out of nowhere. How silly. Evil souls make up evil ideas.

Yes there is the unending number Pi. However, this does nothing to help you in preventing you from going to hell because you are an atheist. Pi has its own reasons too why it never ends. It doesn't just happen all by itself.

This conversation is really dull, for I just keep hearing the same mindless self-declaration that you think things happen all by themselves like puff the magic dragon. You give no valid reason. It is retarded.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 04:22 AM

Churchwork,
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 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/) which discusses omnipotence and necessary objects:

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.
The rules of math are necessarily true. Like all things in nature, math is itself a law of nature and has its cause. Since they can not be the ultimate cause, therefore, the uncreated creator caused them.

Understand you have just self-declared mindlessly math is the creator. Math caused the first event. Don't you feel embarrassed by such a ridiculous comment? Can you feel all the scientists in the world laughing at you?

God can create necessary state of affairs. How silly that He cannot. These state of affairs are necessarily created by Him.

Mathematics cannot exist without a precedent cause for them. Mathematics don't make a decision, they are like anything in nature, they just react to their laws. Math would not exist if something didn't put math in motion to be a law. It is not even clear whether the universe needs math or math needs the universe. Math may just be the outcropping of the universe's properties. And that's ok.

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.
Not only is everything with a cause intuitional, but it is objectively observable in the case of precedence time and time again we discover the cause of something to lead us to the conclusion all things have a cause. The most surprising things we could not find a cause to initially we later discover, leaving us confident that all things in nature have a cause. So based on the fact we can cite at least a trillion things with a cause and not one thing with certainty that is without cause, therefore, the odds against the atheist are astounding. To be an atheist is insane!

Scientifically this is our finding. But we can never know all things since we never know with 100% certainty, only a great amount of certainty. And since science can't even prove itself, we recognize the limitations of science itself. God places His restrictions on the law of science as well to limit our ability to break into His domain beyond His will.

Since you can provide nothing to counter this evidence, your proclamations lie dead as is your heart to God. It is not necessary to be a calculus scholar to observe these facts, and God forbid only calculus majors could be saved. That would be a very dull eternity.
:hilarious

Your own intuition perspective is what fails you every time. Understand your spirit is your inner man or woman as the case may be. It uses the functions of intuition and conscience. Since you have the evil spirit in your spirit, naturally you are committed to the lie of thinking things happen all by themselves, but as we have seen that is asinine and deadly to your assumed faith in the idol god of mathematics that you think is the cause of all things even itself. We must conclude easily that your ideas are clouded by a darkened mind, and your mind is darkened because your spirit is shut-in and covered up by demonic control of your members. Nothing else explains adequately your big assumptions that are without basis.

Part of the problem is introspection. God never asked you to be so introspection. An analogy might be someone standing all day in front of mirror looking at himself to discover the secrets of the universe and his conclusion is since all he sees is himself, therefore, whatever crazy idea he fathoms must be the truth.

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.
This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain. The sense described of omnipotence is false. Omnipotence is "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". It does not ever mean bringing about impossible state of affairs. This renders the whole argument ridiculous and boring.

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 universe was no more "created" than the rules of math.
The Schroding equation solves no question before us. Since any such kind of particles have their root cause just as mathematics must, since they are things of nature, then they need a creator. The universe therefore is no more uncaused than math. Oh bow to to the great math idol! Just like wood and stone! God said in the Bible they are not even gods, people only make them out to be to puff up themselves. Perhaps it is their vocation so they make it their idol.

See how easy this is to explain. Simple as pie, just as easy as it is to be saved.

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.
The reason the universe is necessary is because God wants to walk with man made in His image in the universe that is so incredibly vast, that you can see how profound His intentions are. And the universe is contingent on God's wanting it. If God did not want it, it would not be here. Pretty simple.

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.
All aspects of the 4 Step Proof for God remain solid.

One lengthy post is the equivalent of many of my short posts. Do you see how you accuse by your petty self? It is so easy to spot. Anything to exalt self, but you have no idea you are going to hell. Perhaps you do, but you don't care. Either way all else being equal you will be in hell shortly. And that God for that to keep you eternally separated from His own people.

Each of my posts are quite short compared to your long posts, very very long in fact. I think you have the endurance to write these long posts because you already did. However, you may not have the endurance to see all your errors and why the 4 Step Proof for God remains unchallenged. But at least these posts are up here for you to look at in the coming years. And may they help lead you to Christ, even to read the whole Bible quietly and patiently and prayerfully.

Since I am not a scientist and to be a scientist is certainly not required, nor do you show any need to be a scientist to be of vital importance, we must conclude you are just confusing yourself and looking for things to puff up yourself for you need something to rationalize your being a bad person as good and make it seem like you are in reality even though you are not. It is enough for someone with a clear thinking mind to realize since nothing in nature happens all by itself, there for the supernatural must be the cause which is beyond the greatest scientific mind that ever lived.

Still no reason is given for the idea of puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself, therefore Step 2 remains intact and as powerful as the day it was given. Praise the Lord!

It looks like you are going to have to go into moderation which simply means you can post, but before it is displayed I will have to approve because you mindlessly accuse of presumptions but show none. Your presumption is to think that math happened all by itself. If you behave yourself, in time the moderation status wears off.

You have to understand why you can't give your life to Christ. It is because you like being in sin. You like your obstinate and mindless reasoning. Perhaps you have found no one who can easily pull apart your thoughts like I have done. Well now that I have done so, give your life to Christ. Since you could find no problem with the 4 Step Proof it remains the Proof of God of the Bible.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 04:56 AM

Churchwork,
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.
We both know very well that since the universe was caused by the uncaused creator that none can compare to Christ. And as such, God intervening in His creation is no problem at all, like walking on water. This is would be surprisingly the easiest of things to do. Just like you can upload a program to your computer or if you are playing a computer game and cause the character in the game to perform a certain stunt, so would God be able to easily break into His creation.

Since Jesus did not lie and the apostles certainly did not lie about Him, in all going to their deaths, we must conclude that this was an amazing time in history when Jesus in the fullness of the Godhead bodily walked in His creation. And if we are to live out in the universe billions of years, the one thing that will always be cherished is the 66 books of God's Word.

Not only does Step 2 prove God of the Bible, but so does Step 1 which as you know is not strictly a cosmological proof. Since in the 4 Step Proof of God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) is embedded the various reasons why none can compare to Jesus being God, and you did not challenge any of them, it remains true Jesus is God, and the council of the Godhead before 13.7 billion years ago agreed Jesus would be erected as authority in creation to provide salvation in His humility to the Father for the atonement of sins and giver of eternal life by His death on the cross unto any that would receive Him. What love! What grace! What joy! What peace! What comfort! What truth-He is the way the truth and the life!

No further rebuttal is needed from my part, but now you would need to respond to the proofs and address your blind assumptions.

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.
The above statement is false because a part of it is false. Though it is true that the universe is necessary, it is not necessary for the reason you think. It is necessary first of all because it is and the reason why it is, is because it is necessary that the uncreated creator create because nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore the universe was always contingent on God's decision to create according to His good pleasure. So the statement is false when it says "not contingent". And because this point is false, so would be its finding that "the existence of the universe would obtain whether God exists or not".

This statement is false because it does rule out the existence of God when it says the universe is not contingent and we have proven that it is contingent.

So we have proven God created, but we also proved Jesus is God because none can compare to His work on the cross, prophecies fulfilled, miracles, documentation, teaching, martyrdom of the apostles, and Paul and James and Jude and Peter and John, as eyewitness accounts (who would not die for a lie they knew was a lie given what Jesus did for them), Jesus saying He is God in no uncertain terms (notice no religions go this far to say what Christianity says that God entered into creation and walked with us to die for us).

You have provided nothing to challenge the 4 Step Proof of God in any of is parts, including any of its cosmological components.

And you admit you could find no fault with Christianity and God of the Bible.

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.
I don't think it is fair to place such a demand.

(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.)
I still recommend you get Gary Habermas' The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004), because to the best of my knowledge of all that I have surveyed, it could very well be the best book ever written in such a comprehensive manner. It will help you considering your extremely lost condition.

With love, in Christ
Churchwork

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 05:01 AM

Summary of Help for Juliet (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3513&postcount=1)

I think that is a record for me in helping Juliet because she posts the longest posts I have ever come across, but I must admit I enjoyed responding. However, this is her great weakness, so much repetition it dulls the mind. I have actually never seen someone go to such lengths to rationalize a lie, yet nothing said was new to me. Lots of words, no substance. But what I noticed was she basically just kept saying the same thing over and over in her long posts: the BIG ASSUMPTION the universe happened all by itself or MATH happened all by itself or these VIRTUAL PARTICLES happened all by themselves. So funny. Have you ever heard anything so silly? These become her (or his) idols. This is the best argument an atheist can come up with? I have known for quite awhile this is the best an atheist strives for. There is really nothing to the atheist mind. It is as dull as a board. It makes me chuckle how ridiculous people cling to the flesh and it also makes me sad for them for I know what must come next-the bad side of hades and resurrection to GWT for hell. Since nothing in nature is without a cause, only the uncaused caused and that uncaused cause is God Almighty (Step 1) since none can compare to the Trinity of the Godhead of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.

The other 3 major problems are to try to argue against some god who is not God of the Bible (Step 3), overlook Step 4 which is dealing with cause and effects in the supernatural realm, and shutting down her mind to the reality of the exponential progression in our conscience such that if there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we obviously would not still be sinning by now (Step 1).

You really need to come into the new creation Juliet. It is way better to have the Holy Spirit indwelling. I've been where you are and I could not even go back if I wanted to (actually I can't even want to because I don't have it in me to deny my Creator) because at new birth it was forever! I love my new life every day and with eternal blessings I have an ability to commune with God which was not available to me before I was saved. No longer do I live, but Christ lives in me by the Holy Spirit. Resurrection is assured unto glory (1 Thess. 4.15-17). Now I seek after the prize of the hidden treasure which is the reward for those who overcometh in Christ to return with Him to reign on Earth for 1000 years (Rev. 20.2-7). It is so amazing. So incredible and fulfilling! I am content and at peace, and feel overwhelming love in receiving God's grace by continuing to bear my cross (deny sin, self and supernatural) and take it up in daily experience to separate myself from the world. My conscience strengthens daily through my intuition which also increases to be sensitive to God's will.

And I know this is only the beginning. It is just a small foretaste of the amazing things God has planned for those who love Him. Imagine! Not just a few hundred years more or even a thousand years more, not even a million years or even a billion years more. Eternity is more than a trillion years, and more than that! After the 1000 year reign which could be a very long time, far longer than a 1000 years. It is the last time on Earth before it is burnt up. Rewards will be done away with after that in the New City and New Earth.

I know that scientifically speaking scientists expect Earth to be burnt up in a couple billion years from now, so that could be the time frame to which the reigning will be completed. However, my intuition from the Word is telling me that that is not the case for various reasons based on the size of the New City. What I believe I am picking up from the Holy Spirit is the Great Tribulation will be this century probably and Christ returns at the end of the 7 year period in Daniel's prophecy. And something could happen to Earth that ends life on it, but not to worry because Christ will be reigning during the 1000 years and we will be safe before we are transferred livingly into the New City and New Earth.

It is a bit frustrating because you don't know when Christ is going to return, but that is the discipline and it makes us stronger to keep the word of His patience (Rev. 3.10) in knowing he is coming, but we just don't know when. When the season arrives, then we will know. That season will be when the world is about to have its biggest and worse war ever. It will be the last one too. 1/3 of the people the Earth will die (Rev. 9.18) and an army of 200 million machines (v.16) will be fighting over likely oil in the middle east. There is a small battle at the end of the 1000 years, but its nothing like Great Tribulation.

The Savings Ratio (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/savingsratio.htm) I feel is the vital clue to when Christ returns and will only increase in prominence as the decades go by as people try to refine the calculations.

Juliet, you are a scientic-minded person. How about helping me out making better estimates for the Savings Ratio?

Juliet

11-28-2006, 09:00 AM

Churchwork,

This will be my shortest post yet, because I honestly dont think I can say anymore.

Essentially, in all of your short little posts, you werent able to answer my questions. Instead, of answering my questions, you said I worshipped Satan, which is a non-answer.

When I asked my questions specifically dealing with your calculation of sin, you didnt provide any maths at all, only asserted more boldly "its exponential progression", without understanding that exponential progression does not necessarily yield infinity. You objected that I was talking about math, but you were talking about causes and effects, which you then apparently tried to imply that I was changing the subject and not arguing about your step 1 at all... but I dont know why you say that, although I suspect you're disagreeing with me only for the sake of disagreeing with me, while being completely oblivious to the fact that your previous posts make remarks like "as calculus teaches ... approximation of infinity = infinity", you are actually talking about math! I explained that the mathematical concepts you thought supported your assertion werent what they seemed, because they dont always tend toward infinity; so I asked to see your math, but you wouldnt show it.

The closest you came to showing your calculation was this exchange:

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:

Final term in series:

limit (1/3)^n = 0
n = infinity

Moral progression:

infinity
__ 1
\ (1/3)^n = ------- = 1.5
/_ 1-(1/3)
n = 0The 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.

The above formula does not represent the reality of what we see every day. Put a 1 in front of that 1/3, and that represents more of what I am talking about. What we see millennia after millennia is substantial change in conscience so that it has an exponential flavor to it and it is comparable to our scientific development somewhat to help you get a grasp.
Thats it. You just suggested putting a one in front of 1/3, but you didnt explain why you prefer that number above mine, apart from the fact that it just happens to fit your claim; you didnt show your math or justify the numbers you chose, so your equation is arbitrary.

You [I]tried to justify your numbers rhetorically, but not rigorously when you stated "In 1000 years from now, murder rates per capita will be even less than they are now. Now they are even less than what they were 1000 years prior. These are very quantifiable numbers, and you will be able to see the exponetialness of it all by collecting this data.". Alright, they are quantifiable numbers, I agree with that much, because I earn a living working with calculus and statistics everyday... but once again, you dont state the equation you used, you only stated the numbers were quantifiable.

This amounts to nothing. I cant even grant you the benefit of the doubt of pullling your numbers out of thin air, because there arent any numbers at all, just a pathetic rhetoric.

Seriously, let me just take one statement, "it trivial that the murder rate per capita is going down at an exponential rate even inspite of the major wars of the 20th century!". So its going down at an exponential rate... what rate precisely? I dont think you even know how to answer that question, because as I said from the very beginning, you just dont know math very well...

... but of course, theres something else you never even anticipated: an error function. Yes, you can determine precisely the exponential rate at which murder is decreasing, and you can extrapolate that to make predictions about the future, but all statistical models like that have an error that increases (exponentially in fact) with time. Taking data collected today and extrapolating it to infinity is hysterically amateurish, an error you wouldnt even expect from Statistics 101 students. Show me how you calculate your error from your exponential equation, using real numbers with real mathematics, not just rhetoric... wait, why would I bother asking that, I know for a fact that you either wont or cant do it. You'll instead dismiss my question by saying I worship the devil. You're guilty of what you accuse me of, "your scope is too small. You can't just pick pockets of time, for that is too small a sample".

Absent an equation for modeling sin, an error function for approximating future values, and where you have picked your non-existent numbers from apparently nowhere, you are still guilty of cherry picking your data to fit your needs; on the one hand, you point out that murder has decreased, yet you dismiss the fact that abortions are at an all time high, there are more homosexuals than ever, and there have been an increase in atheism in the US, UK, and Australia at a faster rate than theres ever been! Those things never existed in such numbers 100 years ago, they are a very recent phenomena, but you conveniently ignore them for some unspoken reason. I've never seen such a severe case of selection bias in my life.

All you have are self-proclomations, but when asked to explain them, you just dont. I think its because you just dont know what you're talking about; you're just one of a dime-a-dozen people who have their own crackpot theories of mind / science / theology / whatever, but you dont understand them at all. I've seen this so many times its not even funny, it puts you in the same boat with people who say "quantum consciousness explains telepathy!!"; that is, a boat full of crackpots.

Crackpots have a habit of contradicting themselves, especially when they dont understand what they talk about, for example "The cause (of free will actions) is the very fact that it is made in God's image! Just like in quantum mechanics we often can only speak of probabilities, so it is with man's free-will, still ultimately caused. Just because something has a probability does not mean it is without a cause of being afforded the free-choice and to employ its own processes and receive from God or not." To say that God causes us to freely do anything is incoherent because free will and determinism are incoherent. You dont know what you're talking about. "no free-choice is undetermined", you dont have a clue what you're saying.

And now a numbers game again, "I only state that since the odds are against you by a margin at least less than 1 in a trillion, you would be the worse gambler that ever lived." At least this time I can see a statistic, but I also see you pulled the number out of thin air, simply because you dont understand that that there is no theory that has unified GR and QM. In addition, you state "Because on the electron level, we don't know how it works exactly and thus can not predicted with certainty, does not mean there isn't real deterministic things going on there." as if the uncertainty principle is just a verbal argument... you've probably never even seen the math behind it; you've heard of it in pop culture, but otherwise you dont know what you're talking about. If you could disprove uncertainty principle, I guarantee you'll win the next 10 Nobel prizes; but you'll only win those prizes when you can show the error in the math, math you've never seen and probably arent aware even exists.

And again, "The energy that gives rise to any so-called virtual particles has itself a cause of some other energy and so on and so forth.", not an shred of proof, just rhetoric. All you have is rhetoric, but that means nothing in the face of math. These things are quirks math, but their existence is confirmed experimentally. Seriously, look at these equations, look at the diagrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) (for the love of God, please dont say "but that links to an article on the casimir effect, not virtual particles, idiot"), stop being arrogant and actually take a look at what you're trying to argue against. Just for fun, look at the article titled The Casimir Effect: a force from nothing (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6).

Remember what I said about intuition? In the world your used to seeing everyday, cause-and-effect are commonplace, but a lot of those rules arent true in the quantum level. Rules like the inverse square law break down, rules defining quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) are a reality in the quantum world but do not exist in the macroworld, causality breaks down. To put it simply, the rules of quantum physics, while mathematically proven and empirically verified, look nothing like the rules in world you're used to seeing everyday. You just dont know what you're talking about, and dismissing my comments with your ignorant rhetoric does not amount to a defense of your proof, but a public display of ignorance.

And finally, "The rules of math are necessarily true. Like all things in nature, math is itself a law of nature and has its cause. Since they can not be the ultimate cause, therefore, the uncreated creator caused them. Understand you have just self-declared mindlessly math is the creator. Math caused the first event. Don't you feel embarrassed by such a ridiculous comment? Can you feel all the scientists in the world laughing at you?" Math causes every event, the whole universe is a complicated interacting mesh of equations; nothing in the universe is unbounded by math. And no, I dont feel ridiculous, because your comments are a word game, essentially linking two unrelated ideas together because they have a word in common; unlike gods, math does not exist concretely, it doesnt "will" anything, it doesnt "think" about anything, it has no properties in common with any conception of God.

The comment that its an "uncreated creator" is so misleading its hard to know whether you're being serious or not. Just for fun, we might say that the property "having a shape" is an intrinsic and necessary property of cubes, so that the rule "having a shape" actually creates cubes... but that doesnt make sense to say. The property "having a shape" is purely descriptive, it describes the nature of cubes. All of the rules of logic are necessary as well, but they dont "create" truths, they are a definition of the nature of truths.

Of course, this isnt the first time you linked two unrelated ideas by a similar word: you stated that being created from star dust and the use of "dust" in Genesis actually confirms the truth of Genesis, when the concept of interstellar "dust" would have been completly alien to the authors of Genesis in the first place. The bible's use means that humans were literally molded from clay, then animated with life by God; and definitely that description of dust doesnt match any astronomers definition of dust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_dust).

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.

This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain. The sense described of omnipotence is false. Omnipotence is "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". It does not ever mean bringing about impossible state of affairs. This renders the whole argument ridiculous and boring.
*sigh* You say that the argument is ridiculous and boring because you dont define omnipotence to include bringing about impossible states of affairs... wait for it... wait for it... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS PROVING! Its stated verbatim in the article itself:

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. Obviously, an agent's having the power to bring about a state of affairs entails that, possibly, the agent brings about that state of affairs. Thus, the first sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Henceforth, it will be assumed that it is not possible for an agent to have the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever.
I said above that you're disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement, and the above example proves it: you called an argument ridiculous and boring inspite of the fact that it agrees with you 100%, verbatim, down to the letter. You disagreed with the argument because I was the one who posted it, not because you actually understood what it said.

The Schroding equation solves no question before us. Since any such kind of particles have their root cause just as mathematics must, since they are things of nature, then they need a creator.
Rhetoric without math again. Prove your statement and then claim your Nobel prize, then get back to me.

I've been where you are and I could not even go back if I wanted to (actually I can't even want to because I don't have it in me to deny my Creator) because at new birth it was forever!
I know for a fact that is false. You've never been where I am, because I have a post-college education, I actually know calculus, I've read more philosophy and more on the historical Christ than you have (certainly more than a single fundamentalists' book of apologetics). In a nutshell, and this is going to sound incredibly arrogant and elitist, but I'm just a better informed person than you are, you've never been at my level.

On the contrary, I used to be at your level. Many years ago when USENET was all the rage, I used to post on the religious newsgroups some very ignorant things, ignorant enough things that would be reposted on the website I dare not mention if they were ever discovered. I disagreed with people only if they were atheists, but a lot of times atheists would make arguments supporting my side, but I'd still disagree with them because they were atheists... basically, I was like you. I wasnt as rude and condescending as you, but I was stubbornly ignorant for the longest time, until I actually learned a little about math, science, and philosophy.

However, even though this is going to be hard for you to accept, because you have a severe cognitive dissonance against anyone and anything that doesnt agree with you, I want you to understand that from an academic point of view, your proof is laughably awful. Usually, apologists of your caliber can only convince the already convinced that Christianity is true, but I dont even think a Christian would call your argument good. There are dozens of theists who I've seen who make better arguments for Christianity, a lot better than Habermas, CS Lewis, McDowell and Wilson, Griesler, and other dime-a-dozen apologists ever could; at least one, William Lane Craig, comes to mind as a very good theologian, but I doubt you've even heard of that name.

Essentially, as you have demonstrated by your own replies, your entire defense of your 4-step proof is reduced down to name calling and belittling me. I've never been damned to hell, accused of following Satan, and told I was a sinner so many times in my life. The crux of all of your rebuttals have nothing to do with the logical veracity of your proof, but has everything to do with saying that you're better than me for being a Christian. You didnt answer any of my most important questions, like how you deduced your calculations; in fact, not a single math equation exists anywhere in your entire 4-Step proof at all. Math concepts like a limit exist, but you very obviously dont have a good understanding of it turn that or any other math concept into an argument for God. Wheres the exponential equation for moral progress? Wheres the error function? Nowhere to be found, because you dont understand those concepts on an academic level, so you cannot possibly provide them.

I've repeatedly pointed out places where you need to explain your argument better, where you beg the question, where you use elementary logical errors... did you go back to fix or clarify even one thing? No, you didnt. However, every other rational person who looks at your proof is going to find the same mistakes I did, and you'll complain about having to hear the same thing over and over again. Believe me, nobody gets an argument right the first time, especially not an argument as long as yours, yet you stated in almost every post that your 4-step proof has remained the same from the beginning... thats right, it is the same from the beginning, and it retains all of the elementary errors that it had from the start.

You leave too much unexplained, you justify too many things rhetorically but not rigorously, you, you beg too many questions, you talk about concepts that you very obviously dont understand, you disagree with your opponents no matter if they are actually arguing for or against your positin, you wont answer directly questions about your methodology, your rebuttals are composed of largely venomous attacks against your opponents character and not your opponents actual arguments, etc etc etc. The problems with your proof and your defense go on and on, and that is why your proof is the worst one I've ever read, and thats why it will never convince anyone to become a Christian.

You are just a crackpot pretending to be a philosopher, not much different from Gene Ray or David Icke, and its painfully evident to every rational person on the planet. In the end, you proof is reduced down to something so anti-academic that it couldnt even be called an apologetic, simply because you dont know what you're talking about.

I will admit, your amateurish style of argumentation irritates the life out of me, and I only hope I've reciprocated appropriately, but otherwise I've enjoyed this discussion, because I've never seen anyone else reply to all of my lengthy posts in full. I may or may not get to the historical accuracy of the Bible. I usually have a night off from work, but I was asked to come in and work an extra day, so I'll try to get back to you ASAP. That is, if you havent already banned me for belligrency. If you ban me, we can pick up on this discussion on some forum where I make the rules ;)

(I had promised to keep this reply shorter than the others, and... well... I'll admit, I'm verbose ;) And my posts in this forum are childsplay compared to the posts I've written on other unmentionable forums.)

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 11:15 AM

Churchwork,
This will be my shortest post yet, because I honestly dont think I can say anymore.

Essentially, in all of your short little posts, you werent able to answer my questions. Instead, of answering my questions, you said I worshipped Satan, which is a non-answer.
What you say or don't say is up to you. Whatever questions you asked were answered I am sure adequately enough. If it was not the case you could show otherwise. I do believe you worship Satan, since you certainly don't worship God and have no relationship with Jesus Christ.

When I asked my questions specifically dealing with your calculation of sin, you didnt provide any maths at all, only asserted more boldly "its exponential progression", without understanding that exponential progression does not necessarily yield infinity. You objected that I was talking about math, but you were talking about causes and effects, which you then apparently tried to imply that I was changing the subject and not arguing about your step 1 at all... but I dont know why you say that, although I suspect you're disagreeing with me only for the sake of disagreeing with me, while being completely oblivious to the fact that your previous posts make remarks like "as calculus teaches ... approximation of infinity = infinity", you are actually talking about math! I explained that the mathematical concepts you thought supported your assertion werent what they seemed, because they dont always tend toward infinity; so I asked to see your math, but you wouldnt show it.
Before my posts were lengthy, now they are little? An exponential progression in our conscience is a general statement of the increasing improvement of our conscience as cited by the various examples given. A mathematical formula is not necessary, nor could we make such a depiction so accurately through a math formula. We can only roughly estimate by citing various changes in human behavior to see there is a general trend that has an exponential improvement to it that is noticeable. Sounds reasonable. As all exponential progressions go, they lead to an ever increasing rapid rate if they continue on their course. They do approximate infinity as they continue on. As the rate of increase increases faster and faster, it becomes so rapid that it approximates infinity. This is necessarily the case. Hope that doesn't upset you too much.

I didn't say I object to you talking about math, why say so? If you are going to accuse of something, perhaps try to show it instead of just self-declaring it. Of course I am talking about cause and effects, as that is the basis of the Proof. Forgive me if I don't respond to your accusations that you don't cite the source for, but you are free to cite that source, and I would be happy to respond. This is a correct statement, "as calculus teaches, approximation to infinity is taken as infinity". I have never known any exponential progression that doesn't approach infinity. If one does not, you could show it, couldn't you? We know there is an exponential progression in our conscience, for each millennial there is a substantial change in our behavior patterns reflecting our conscience so that we simply stop doing things we as a human race had done before. For example, there is no more throwing of children in the fiery mouth of Molech and the murder rate per capita is going down. Before men might have had several wives, but with each millennia the number of wives drops. This is an exponential progression. It's not hard to see.

The closest you came to showing your calculation was this exchange:

Thats it. You just suggested putting a one in front of 1/3, but you didnt explain why you prefer that number above mine, apart from the fact that it just happens to fit your claim; you didnt show your math or justify the numbers you chose, so your equation is arbitrary.

No, you're not understanding. By putting no 1 in front, the number actually gets smaller and smaller. But the idea of an exponential progression in improvement is that of course there would be a 1 in front to see the exponential progression increase to approximate infinity on the side of increase. This is a very reasonable statement, not hard to understand at all.

You tried to justify your numbers rhetorically, but not rigorously when you stated "In 1000 years from now, murder rates per capita will be even less than they are now. Now they are even less than what they were 1000 years prior. These are very quantifiable numbers, and you will be able to see the exponetialness of it all by collecting this data.". Alright, they are quantifiable numbers, I agree with that much, because I earn a living working with calculus and statistics everyday... but once again, you dont state the equation you used, you only stated the numbers were quantifiable.

This amounts to nothing. I cant even grant you the benefit of the doubt of pullling your numbers out of thin air, because there arent any numbers at all, just a pathetic rhetoric.

There is no need to state an equation, for it is enough to observe the improvement generally speaking. If you want to do a deeper study of this, you are welcome to do so. I am sure someone has already done demographic studies like this which you can collect the data from that show the improvements. However, we can say based on various findings you see in the paper that the population sizes of cities are massive and the number of crimes to those populations is relatively small, showing a significant improvement from previous centuries. This is not as complicated to witness to.

Seriously, let me just take one statement, "it trivial that the murder rate per capita is going down at an exponential rate even inspite of the major wars of the 20th century!". So its going down at an exponential rate... what rate precisely? I dont think you even know how to answer that question, because as I said from the very beginning, you just dont know math very well...

... but of course, theres something else you never even anticipated: an error function. Yes, you can determine precisely the exponential rate at which murder is decreasing, and you can extrapolate that to make predictions about the future, but all statistical models like that have an error that increases (exponentially in fact) with time. Taking data collected today and extrapolating it to infinity is hysterically amateurish, an error you wouldnt even expect from Statistics 101 students. Show me how you calculate your error from your exponential equation, using real numbers with real mathematics, not just rhetoric... wait, why would I bother asking that, I know for a fact that you either wont or cant do it. You'll instead dismiss my question by saying I worship the devil. You're guilty of what you accuse me of, "your scope is too small. You can't just pick pockets of time, for that is too small a sample".

I have already said if you want to do a deeper analysis you are free to do so, but suffice it to say we know the population is over 6 billion and the number of people that die due to murder percentage wise is falling. I don't know the exact number, but I do know generally speaking it is a fact. Don't let your petty self get in the way that you need to know the exact number to avoid the truth of this observation. My math skills are fine, and I got honors in math, so really that is not the issue at all. The issue is your belligerency to not recognize such a basic principle that there has been an exponential improvement in less murders per capita. Don't try to exalt yourself regarding math, for it just makes you look like you are grabbing onto anything you can to try to self-exalt yourself. Let it go.

Yes you do worship the devil because you call Jesus a liar. I don't think there is in any doubt at all about your going to hell. I am not guilty of your problem of picking too small a sample, since my idea would be to consider estimates of murders per capita ever sine the first Adamic man. The murder per capita was 50% with the two sons of Adam. Wars were profuse and they annihilated whole tribes which make up a significant portion of the population, more so back then compared to today.

Whatever the margin of error is it could never be so large as to reverse the exponential progression to become an exponential digression.

Absent an equation for modeling sin, an error function for approximating future values, and where you have picked your non-existent numbers from apparently nowhere, you are still guilty of cherry picking your data to fit your needs; on the one hand, you point out that murder has decreased, yet you dismiss the fact that abortions are at an all time high, there are more homosexuals than ever, and there have been an increase in atheism in the US, UK, and Australia at a faster rate than theres ever been! Those things never existed in such numbers 100 years ago, they are a very recent phenomena, but you conveniently ignore them for some unspoken reason. I've never seen such a severe case of selection bias in my life.

Of course there is more abortions, more homosexuals, atheists, because there are more people, but percentage wise there are less of them. Homos are not a recent phenomenon. To show you how bad it was in the OT period they destroyed whole cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah and various surrounded cities for this perversion. Imagine today all of San Francisco being blown up because of all of the homos in that city. You get my point. This is hardly cherry picking, but tangible evidence. Don't just accuse mindlessly of some bias, but show it if it is true. Self-declarations don't have much value.

All you have are self-proclomations, but when asked to explain them, you just dont. I think its because you just dont know what you're talking about; you're just one of a dime-a-dozen people who have their own crackpot theories of mind / science / theology / whatever, but you dont understand them at all. I've seen this so many times its not even funny, it puts you in the same boat with people who say "quantum consciousness explains telepathy!!"; that is, a boat full of crackpots.
I do explain my position, so don't accuse mindlessly that I don't. That's just your self-proclamation without proof. Your comparisons are hardly worth consideration. Since the Proof for God is exceedingly simple as you would expect so that people don't have to be rocket scientists to figure it out, then even you should be able to understand it. There is an exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, most people will agree since murder rates per capita are going down and people certainly don't do some of the things we use to do before like actually throw children in the fiery mouth of the god of Molech. However, we still sin, so this shows that there could not have been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, otherwise we would have been without sin by now. And since everything in nature has a cause, you know that the uncreated creator created who is God of the Bible given Christ. It is also interesting to note that in your puff the magic dragon theory that things happen all by themselves, if such a thing ever did occur, it would be divine intervention because nothing can happen all by itself.

Just so you know you get an Infraction for name calling. Don't call people crackpots, for that is not loving.

Crackpots have a habit of contradicting themselves, especially when they dont understand what they talk about, for example "The cause (of free will actions) is the very fact that it is made in God's image! Just like in quantum mechanics we often can only speak of probabilities, so it is with man's free-will, still ultimately caused. Just because something has a probability does not mean it is without a cause of being afforded the free-choice and to employ its own processes and receive from God or not." To say that God causes us to freely do anything is incoherent because free will and determinism are incoherent. You dont know what you're talking about. "no free-choice is undetermined", you dont have a clue what you're saying.
Free-will and determinism (cause and effects) are coherent and agree perfectly. If they were in contradiction, you could show it and you don't. God of the Bible teaches determinism and free-will. I know what I am talking about and it agrees with the Holy Spirit. But you don't know what you are saying in your accusations, because you can't show it. All you can do is self-declare it, and this is the proof of your faulty logic. It is not logical to accuse by self-declaration which stems from the evil spirit in your spirit. You should repent.

And now a numbers game again, "I only state that since the odds are against you by a margin at least less than 1 in a trillion, you would be the worse gambler that ever lived." At least this time I can see a statistic, but I also see you pulled the number out of thin air, simply because you dont understand that that there is no theory that has unified GR and QM. In addition, you state "Because on the electron level, we don't know how it works exactly and thus can not predicted with certainty, does not mean there isn't real deterministic things going on there." as if the uncertainty principle is just a verbal argument... you've probably never even seen the math behind it; you've heard of it in pop culture, but otherwise you dont know what you're talking about. If you could disprove uncertainty principle, I guarantee you'll win the next 10 Nobel prizes; but you'll only win those prizes when you can show the error in the math, math you've never seen and probably arent aware even exists.
There is a theory that has unified GR and QM. It is called the UNIFIED THEORY and has 10 dimensions in string theory. I saw it on a PBS special on String Theory. Scientists say they have a potential Unified Theory. Who am I to argue with the greatest minds on the planet. You don't know what you are talking about, you really don't, because you are always trying argue for the idea in puff the magic dragon without reason, And even if your puff the magic dragon theory was true, it still would not have any validity in the way you perceive it because, since nothing in nature happens all by itself, therefore, it must have been divine intervention.

Credible scientists don't teach puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. Rather, they simple say they just don't know what the cause is yet. That is the humble position to take. It is the non-overassuming position. Understand you don't need to know the most complex scientific equations to be saved. If you did then God would be violating His own law that He is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34) and that we are all made in God's image (Gen. 1.26,27). Why would I need to show the error in the math of the uncertainty principle? You are really getting off topic. The uncertainty principle doesn't claim something happens from nothing. You are just misreading what the principle says.

And again, "The energy that gives rise to any so-called virtual particles has itself a cause of some other energy and so on and so forth.", not an shred of proof, just rhetoric. All you have is rhetoric, but that means nothing in the face of math. These things are quirks math, but their existence is confirmed experimentally. Seriously, look at these equations, look at the diagrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) (for the love of God, please dont say "but that links to an article on the casimir effect, not virtual particles, idiot"), stop being arrogant and actually take a look at what you're trying to argue against. Just for fun, look at the article titled The Casimir Effect: a force from nothing (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6).
Since nothing in nature has ever happened all by itself that we have been able to verify, and things we discovered to our surprise have a cause that we could not determine for the longest time, the humble position to take is when you don't know the cause, don't automatically assume it doesn't have a cause. That would be illogical. I don't know any scientist that thinks that way. They might as well stop investigating if that is their attitude. There is no experiment ever given that could prove something happens all by itself. That's your catch-22. You're not able to prove it because you don't have a device to be able to prove it. And no device is provided unless God gives it to you. Since the scientific method can't prove things happen all by themselves, it must mean the scientific method has its own limitations, after all, it can't even prove itself. I always find that funny. Either way, you lose, and your assumption is based on a pipe dream. Haha!

Nothing in those links suggests something happens all by itself. Don't speak for me, for I did not say what you said I said, and then you accused of arrogance? You are getting warped, even more than before. Your anger is increasing. Why don't you try to relax, because you are getting all worked up. The virtual particles mentioned don't indicate they happened all by themselves. If it did you could show it. Stop pointing out various articles in such a vague fashion, but try to be specific and post it on the forums. We are not mind readers here. All those articles show is they don't know the exact cause of that interaction. Just because you are not smart enough to figure it out, doesn't mean there is not a cause. I love how God doesn't let you understand things. He lets you be arrogant to conclude just because you can't figure it out it must not be there. What a dull mind you have.

There was no experiment conducted that proved there was no cause, only that they couldn't figure out the cause because it was too complicated for them to figure out.

Remember what I said about intuition? In the world your used to seeing everyday, cause-and-effect are commonplace, but a lot of those rules arent true in the quantum level. Rules like the inverse square law break down, rules defining quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) are a reality in the quantum world but do not exist in the macroworld, causality breaks down. To put it simply, the rules of quantum physics, while mathematically proven and empirically verified, look nothing like the rules in world you're used to seeing everyday. You just dont know what you're talking about, and dismissing my comments with your ignorant rhetoric does not amount to a defense of your proof, but a public display of ignorance.
Remember what I said about intuition? Don't rely on your intuition which is indwelt by the evil spirit that says just because you can't figure it out that means it must not have a cause. That is just your pride talking and is the mindset of a dullard. Scientists don't say the quantum level does not have its causes, only that they can't figure it out. They would not be good scientists if they just gave up and decided for no reason whatsoever it has no cause. It is common place to actually see things happen all the time, which you just can't figure out for the life of you what caused them, or for that matter why you did something you didn't want to do. The reason you do things you know you shouldn't do, and don't do things you know you ought to is because of a cause though it is not always easy to see. The cause is your flesh and your flesh is corrupted so much so that God knows its real condition to the point it must die and it cannot be refined or fixed. God's treatment of the flesh is to have you die on the cross with Christ to put to naught the deeds of the flesh. This is the only way in a perfect salvation.

The causality one may be use does not seem to fit, but does not mean there is not a causality in play. It is because you are using your preconceived notions of things, that causes you to see things not as they really or you just don't have the skill set to understand the deeper underlying workings of the causes.

My work as a child of God is to get you to see for yourself that it is your pride that causes you to think there is no legitimate cause just because you are not smart enough to figure it out. Since all things have a cause that we know of on all levels, and we can never prove something does not have a cause, it would stand to reason that in those areas we don't have the understanding yet, we should not jump to conclusions that there is no cause. Since the odds are trillions of causes to no incidents of proven causelessness, then the odds are stacked against you big time!

Since you make a claim things happen all by themselves, but you can't prove it, this shows you don't know what you are talking about because you think something is true you have no evidence for. Why just blindly accept the evil spirit's leading in your spirit?

You really should rethink your position, because it is quite embarrassing to see you make such a fool of yourself.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 12:27 PM

Churchwork,
And finally, "The rules of math are necessarily true. Like all things in nature, math is itself a law of nature and has its cause. Since they can not be the ultimate cause, therefore, the uncreated creator caused them. Understand you have just self-declared mindlessly math is the creator. Math caused the first event. Don't you feel embarrassed by such a ridiculous comment? Can you feel all the scientists in the world laughing at you?" Math causes every event, the whole universe is a complicated interacting mesh of equations; nothing in the universe is unbounded by math. And no, I dont feel ridiculous, because your comments are a word game, essentially linking two unrelated ideas together because they have a word in common; unlike gods, math does not exist concretely, it doesnt "will" anything, it doesnt "think" about anything, it has no properties in common with any conception of God.
Math certainly has a great deal of importance, but we can't say it governs everything. For example, math does not govern our conscience. Conscience is that organ of our being that spontaneously judges through our intuition without regard to what one might think. Sometimes you think through a plan, but no matter how hard you try, you just can appease your conscience. So you should listen to that still small voice. It with either condone or admonish an action or thought. Math does not account for this working in one's conscience. When you feel love for someone, there is no math involved. You don't think beforehand, I love this person because 2+3=5. So to say unequivocally math controls everything would be way too presumptuous. Try to be more humble.

Math is very concrete. 2+2=4 is very concrete and lifeless. But God is love, spirit, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, personal, holy, righteous, forgiving, immutable, living and so many more qualities in such a vast complex of traits that math really does not compare. God wraps math around his little thumb. These are no word games you accuse of, but real qualities of the Uncreated God. One property that math has similar to God is its immutability. It has laws that are always unchanging reflecting the Creator of the math. There is no such thing as gods, for the Bible says they are just wooden idols and ideas you exalt in your head above God; you make math your idol, for it is what you exalt above God so that you remain unsaved. Crazy stuff!

The comment that its an "uncreated creator" is so misleading its hard to know whether you're being serious or not. Just for fun, we might say that the property "having a shape" is an intrinsic and necessary property of cubes, so that the rule "having a shape" actually creates cubes... but that doesnt make sense to say. The property "having a shape" is purely descriptive, it describes the nature of cubes. All of the rules of logic are necessary as well, but they dont "create" truths, they are a definition of the nature of truths.
There is nothing misleading about the uncreated creator. Since nothing in nature is without a cause, then all things in nature have a cause so that the first cause must be created by something outside nature, and the only possibility would the the Uncreated God. To think this is not serious business is to underestimate what is being said, because if you don't get it, guess what? You are going to hell to be eternally separated from God forever with no free get out jail card.

Your example is a fallacy, but you fail to apply this particular fallacy to anything of significance in this discussion. So logically, don't waste time like that.

Of course, this isnt the first time you linked two unrelated ideas by a similar word: you stated that being created from star dust and the use of "dust" in Genesis actually confirms the truth of Genesis, when the concept of interstellar "dust" would have been completly alien to the authors of Genesis in the first place. The bible's use means that humans were literally molded from clay, then animated with life by God; and definitely that description of dust doesnt match any astronomers definition of dust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_dust).
The dust is referring to the dust of the ground which of course I had not said otherwise. That should be obvious. The earth is a planet of dust. So are all the other planets in other solar systems sharing many of the same properties, so when the Bible says our bodies are from dust it is most accurate. The Holy Spirit chose the word "dust" for a very important reason, because we would know that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years (see Gen. 1.1), and realize the body came from the big bang.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2.7).

You are missing such a simple point that the dust of the ground is the dust of this planet and this planet comes from the stars. These properties all agree. All the cosmic dust and planetary dust actually have common origins.

*sigh* You say that the argument is ridiculous and boring because you dont define omnipotence to include bringing about impossible states of affairs... wait for it... wait for it... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS PROVING! Its stated verbatim in the article itself:

I said above that you're disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement, and the above example proves it: you called an argument ridiculous and boring inspite of the fact that it agrees with you 100%, verbatim, down to the letter. You disagreed with the argument because I was the one who posted it, not because you actually understood what it said.

I disagree with you because you are wrong, not for the sake of disagreeing. What would be the point in that? I said I disagree with the definition by Descartes, because the definition was wrong. That's a fact.

This is a false statement: "Nor is it possible for an agent to bring about a necessary state of affairs". The agent is God, and He brings about the necessary state of affairs because it is His will to do so and according to His good pleasure. We see the state of affairs today exist because they were necessary. But they were necessary because God decided it was so. So God brought it about it that which is necessary. Otherwise, your should not brought up the point at all, because it would not apply to our discussion.

You really should get back on topic to the 4 Step Proof. Still you can find no problem with it, so is that why you deflect?

Rhetoric without math again. Prove your statement and then claim your Nobel prize, then get back to me.
I can't prove things happen all by themselves. All I know is more than a trillion things have been seen with their causes and nobody has ever been able to prove even once that something happens all by itself. So the odds are against you big time! I would not want to be in your shoes with your overassuming. Pride begets the fall.

I know for a fact that is false. You've never been where I am, because I have a post-college education, I actually know calculus, I've read more philosophy and more on the historical Christ than you have (certainly more than a single fundamentalists' book of apologetics). In a nutshell, and this is going to sound incredibly arrogant and elitist, but I'm just a better informed person than you are, you've never been at my level.
I was unsaved like you are unsaved now. I was in the old creation just as you are in the old creation at this very moment. Now I am in the new creation, and you have no idea what I am talking about because your spirit is dead to God and has not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You can't sense the reality of eternal life. I took calculus in university too, but calculus did not give me eternal life. God's grace did because I fulfilled the condition according to John 3.16 which is what He needs from you to save you. But you can't do this because you are too selfish and egotistical. You just can't give up control of you. You will have to lose your soul first in order to find it.

You may or may not have read more than me. What distinguishes us is that I have evidence for Christ, you have no evidence for calling Him a liar. I am glad to hear you have read more than one single fundamentalist's book on apologetics, but how about dealing with some specifics, since still you have no reason for your hostility other than you are a bad person who doesn't care and wants to go to hell.

People self-declare they are better informed people all the time, but does not make it so. The question is what are you informed with? Is it of truly being saved or is it in your own self-centeredness and following the evil spirit? We both know the answer to that question because you too are made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness, so you are without excuse. You're just a bad person like those who killed Him because they were jealous of Him and like so many reject the free gift of salvation, they prefer to go their own independent way as though they are gods unto themselves. If you are better informed than me, then you have no excuse for rejecting Christ, since the evidence for Jesus being God and entering creation is fully proven. A lawyer who won 245 cases in a row is in the Guinness Book of Records. He said the case for the death, deity and resurrection of Christ is the best case he has ever seen. I can see where he is coming from because the proof is in my heart which you are blind to despite your self-proclamations of being so informed. A darkened mind no matter how much he gathers in information will reject the honest to good truth.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 01:11 PM

Churchwork,
On the contrary, I used to be at your level. Many years ago when USENET was all the rage, I used to post on the religious newsgroups some very ignorant things, ignorant enough things that would be reposted on the website I dare not mention if they were ever discovered. I disagreed with people only if they were atheists, but a lot of times atheists would make arguments supporting my side, but I'd still disagree with them because they were atheists... basically, I was like you. I wasnt as rude and condescending as you, but I was stubbornly ignorant for the longest time, until I actually learned a little about math, science, and philosophy.
You were never at my level, because it is not dependent on USENET. It is dependent on:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3.16,18).

So you see you are condemned already. In other words you have made up your mind Jesus was a liar, so He will make a liar out of you.

If I have been condescending or rude, please show it, don't just mindlessly accuse for that is rude and stop trying to exalt yourself, for that is condescending. Just accept the fact if the Bible is true, then you are going to hell. Can you at least do that? Math, science and philosophy should help lead you to Christ for correct math, science and philosophy are part of God's creation and draw back to Him. Praise the Lord! So the only reason you are still not saved is because you like remaining in sin, and whatever those sins are for you, they are between you and God and He will deal with you accordingly. But first and foremost you need to be born-again.

However, even though this is going to be hard for you to accept, because you have a severe cognitive dissonance against anyone and anything that doesnt agree with you, I want you to understand that from an academic point of view, your proof is laughably awful. Usually, apologists of your caliber can only convince the already convinced that Christianity is true, but I dont even think a Christian would call your argument good. There are dozens of theists who I've seen who make better arguments for Christianity, a lot better than Habermas, CS Lewis, McDowell and Wilson, Griesler, and other dime-a-dozen apologists ever could; at least one, William Lane Craig, comes to mind as a very good theologian, but I doubt you've even heard of that name.

You are just falsely accusing again mindlessly. Why do you think it is not incumbent upon you try to prove anything you say? Don't just stand there on your pedestal and self-declare things. It makes you very dull. Now since you still can not find any problem with the Proof, then your laughter is just obstinacy. That's all it is. The 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible is the best proof I have ever seen, and you have shown no better proof of God of the Bible, so it stands as the best proof out there to date. I have read several of those authors and I like Habermas' proofs the best using the minimal facts approach for the resurrection. I believe that is the key to everything, because proving God is not the issue. Once you know God created, there is a little more work in proving Christ and Habermas does the best job at it. But those other authors are certainly good too.

Notice your overassuming. Since I know of all those names, you have been mistaken in your accusations again like Satan that great accuser who accuses day and night. Understand what you are doing right now. You are just yelling you are better, you are better. But no you are not, since you are going to hell because you reject Christ and you have no reason for doing so. Don't live in your vagaries, but God is specific in His dealings.

One can't lead you to Christ as long as you believe in puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. Even someone on some remote island somewhere who never even heard of Christ could be saved. If he looked up at the stars and the sky and said how miraculous, that he certainly can't fathom it, but he knows God did it, then if he was introduced to the Word of God surely he would accept it and the salvation given by Christ.

And so remains your problem, you can't accept such the simple faith in the perfect sacrifice, because you can't give up the selfish you. You like your selfishness too much. The cosmos and calculus won't save you. Perhaps your job keeps you in that place of separation from God. Perhaps it is the people you associate with that help you stay away from God. Perhaps it is just you alone that reviles God because you are jaded by earlier experiences of having thought you were a Christian when in fact you were really not saved at all. There is nothing worse than trying worship God by your own strength. It just does not work at all. You really have to give up you. I would be jaded too if I was pretending to be something that I was not, but I have the fruit of the Spirit of love, peace, joy and patience. My sympathies go out to you.

Essentially, as you have demonstrated by your own replies, your entire defense of your 4-step proof is reduced down to name calling and belittling me. I've never been damned to hell, accused of following Satan, and told I was a sinner so many times in my life. The crux of all of your rebuttals have nothing to do with the logical veracity of your proof, but has everything to do with saying that you're better than me for being a Christian. You didnt answer any of my most important questions, like how you deduced your calculations; in fact, not a single math equation exists anywhere in your entire 4-Step proof at all. Math concepts like a limit exist, but you very obviously dont have a good understanding of it turn that or any other math concept into an argument for God. Wheres the exponential equation for moral progress? Wheres the error function? Nowhere to be found, because you dont understand those concepts on an academic level, so you cannot possibly provide them.
Where did I name call or belittle you? You really should stop mindlessly accusing. The Proof stands on its own (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm), you can read anytime you like. It covers all things you brought up so much so I did not need to add even one tittle to it.

You are presently unsaved, condemned to hell because that is the choice you have made for yourself, so don't blame me or God for your choice. That is just the kind of person you want to be in life. Take back the blame and take control of yourself by taking on His yoke, for it is an easy yoke to bear. All my responses deal accordingly to match whatever is that is your issue you are bringing up at the time. I am better than you because I am a Christian, because I have eternal life and you don't. You are not a good person, because you reject Christ and thus God does not forgive you. All you have then is a foretaste of hell to live out. How truly sad for you. Today we put people into jail for their crimes, you will be put into hell for your crime which is the worse crime of all-calling God a liar.

The deducing of calculations was already given by establishing some common knowledge that the murder rate per capita has been decreasing at an exponential rate and we simply don't do some horrible things the human race we once did in the past. You keep repeating yourself, but this answer is more than adequate to substantiate Step 1. The exponential progression of our conscience these past 6000 years shows us that if we had an eternity to be perfected without sin, we would still not be sinning. You don't need some complicated formula for this since all exponential progressions in perpetuity approach infinity. This is a good math proof in general terms that we witness for why Step 1 is so good. For more specific evidence of these facts, you can search out research papers which have done the work already. The margin of error in the exponential improvement of conscience would never be so large as to cause this progression to go the other way. How silly.

I have taken statistical courses, but it is not my calling to produce research reports to give more evidence to this case. I am busy with other matters for God such as convincing souls of Biblical locality. I don't consider spending lots of time with people like yourself because the probability of you ever getting saved is so small, the Lord leads me to more productive work. It would have been better for you if you never heard of Christ at all than for you to have pretended to be a Christian as long as you did and turn away from the faith.

It is enough to know that the exponential progression is real by citing a couple of obvious examples we can all easily recognize. I am more interested in saving souls than getting people to jump into a heady research paper, but be my guest. I am sure you will find it quite stimulating.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 01:36 PM

Churchwork,
I've repeatedly pointed out places where you need to explain your argument better, where you beg the question, where you use elementary logical errors... did you go back to fix or clarify even one thing? No, you didnt. However, every other rational person who looks at your proof is going to find the same mistakes I did, and you'll complain about having to hear the same thing over and over again. Believe me, nobody gets an argument right the first time, especially not an argument as long as yours, yet you stated in almost every post that your 4-step proof has remained the same from the beginning... thats right, it is the same from the beginning, and it retains all of the elementary errors that it had from the start.

Self-declarations are of no account. If you can't prove it, then you are just pontificating. If you found a mistake, how come you can't show it? Since you show no errors, then your are just a clanging bell. I don't complain, I just think it is better for you to respond to my responses instead of avoiding them and returning to your same old statements. This causes me to just repeat the same thing I said in response. We would make better progress if you would move forward instead of spinning your wheels. The Proof is simple, it is not long at all. But I have already shown that, so you keep repeating yourself that the Proof is so long, but its not. Here again is the simple proof:
Considering the exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, we know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects because if there was we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin.
Since not a thing in nature is proven to be without a cause and we have more than a trillion examples of things with a cause, it is reasonable to conclude that the uncreated God created.
Don't argue against some god, because this proof is about God of the Bible.
If there is supernatural* cause and effects such as gods creating gods in the eternity of the past, we would not still be sinning by now because we would have had an eternity to be perfected. Therefore, we know God created Whom is God the Son (along with God the Father and God the Spirit) since none can compare to Him.
* While Step 1 addresses the natural cause and effects, Step 4 covers anything in the supernatural domain. All 4 steps of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) of the Bible are needed, objectively and experimentally.

You leave too much unexplained, you justify too many things rhetorically but not rigorously, you, you beg too many questions, you talk about concepts that you very obviously dont understand, you disagree with your opponents no matter if they are actually arguing for or against your positin, you wont answer directly questions about your methodology, your rebuttals are composed of largely venomous attacks against your opponents character and not your opponents actual arguments, etc etc etc. The problems with your proof and your defense go on and on, and that is why your proof is the worst one I've ever read, and thats why it will never convince anyone to become a Christian.
These are false accusations like the great accuser that Satan uses, which you provide no evidence for. Like you the evil spirit needs no evidence in his false accusations; that is why he is called the great accuser. You should feel guilty for behaving that way.

You are just a crackpot pretending to be a philosopher, not much different from Gene Ray or David Icke, and its painfully evident to every rational person on the planet. In the end, you proof is reduced down to something so anti-academic that it couldnt even be called an apologetic, simply because you dont know what you're talking about.
You shouldn't name call and shut your mind down with false accusations as though they have any value. Every rational person on the planet is born-again and they would agree with the Proof for it is the proof given in God's Word. Since I know what I am talking about, the Proof has remained constant and strengthened by the actions of those such as yourself because you can't find anything specifically wrong with it. All you got are wild accusations. I love that!

I will admit, your amateurish style of argumentation irritates the life out of me, and I only hope I've reciprocated appropriately, but otherwise I've enjoyed this discussion, because I've never seen anyone else reply to all of my lengthy posts in full. I may or may not get to the historical accuracy of the Bible. I usually have a night off from work, but I was asked to come in and work an extra day, so I'll try to get back to you ASAP. That is, if you havent already banned me for belligrency. If you ban me, we can pick up on this discussion on some forum where I make the rules

(I had promised to keep this reply shorter than the others, and... well... I'll admit, I'm verbose And my posts in this forum are childsplay compared to the posts I've written on other unmentionable forums.)
What you are irritated by is the truth. It is not that the truth is unreasonable, but it is unloved, and since you don't have the love of the Lord in your life, naturally you are hostile and reviling and jealous.

You are not banned quite yet. I will give you that Infraction for name calling, and do note, continued mindless accusations without anything backing them is a violation of Board Etiquette #1.

Churchwork

11-28-2006, 02:13 PM

A Help for Juliet to See Beyond Self (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3513&postcount=1)

Facts:
- no problem was found with the 4 Step Proof so to not agree is showing one's hostility to common sense.
- it is a fairy-tale notion the universe happened all by itself and that anything in nature could happen all by itself.
- all things have a cause and effect.
- since nature did not create itself, it must have been created by the uncreated creator.
- since you still sin, you know you have not had an eternity of the past to be perfected; therefore, you and the universe were created.
- the God is the God of the Bible for many reasons that none can compare to: eyewitness testimony of His resurrection in about a eleven different group settings, Christ fulfilled 62 prophecies, unparalled miracles, unparalleled teaching, eyewitnesses were martyred for their testimony of His resurrection, the tomb was empty, James a family skeptic was converted because he saw Jesus resurrected, Paul an outsider skeptic converted because he saw Jesus resurrected, Jesus was sinless and selfless to the best of our knowledge all the way to the cross, He claimed His deity, He knew Christianity would be the greatest religion the world will ever see, and there is no lack of documentation to support all this data.
- when you accuse falsely it gives the accused more strength in Christ.
- when you use lame reasoning, inadvertently you lead people to Christ by convincing them they don't want to be like you.
- when you have no evidence for your claims, this empowers Christians.
- when you accuse with your petty self in a spirit of dissension, it makes you look bad, helps those who are thinking of coming to Christ; and increases the faith of Christians seeing an atheist act that way.
- Juliet does not want to be saved because she or he is a sinner and likes being in sin and way of being to not receive redemption.
- we are all born into sin, but we are all made in God's image (Gen. 1.26,27) with a spirit of God-consciousness (Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23, Luke 1.46,47) so we are without excuse.
- to have a fair and equitable solution for salvation, God does not need people to be rocket scientists or scholars to observe the Proof of God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm), so the proof of the need to be redeemed by Christ Jesus should be quite simple for anyone to understand as God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34). If someone with all kinds of knowledge can't accept the simple truth, well that just shows how puffed up he is in that knowledge.
- for atheists, before you can ever accept Jesus being God as your Lord and Savior, you would first need to accept the proof of creation.
- how can you accept God's Son on the cross to receive forgiveness of sins, if you still cannot even see that the universe was created and needs a creator?
- if a small child can understand such simple things and you can't, realize it is because your spirit has been smothered by your soul in its hardness.
- even the most famous atheist Antony Flew realized this finally in his old age when he could no longer accept the corrupted and evil idea of man's atheism, because the proof for creation and a creator was too overwhelming.
- don't wait as long as he did, because though you may turn from atheism to deism, you still will need to turn from deism to Christ, but the longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes.
- two famous debates were conducted between Dr. Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, 15 years apart, and the moderators unanimously concluded Habermas won easily both times. This is what convinced Antony to relinquish atheism.
- if you wait too long, the hardness of your soul will have so smothered your spirit's sensitivity, that it makes it almost impossible to be born-again at that late stage as the flesh lusts against the Spirit.
- don't let overassuming pride ruin you and separate you from God, for judgment is inevitable.
- the question of your outcome, if you are still unsaved, is not set (from our perspective) until you leave your body of flesh and blood. Whether you are resurrected to the judgment seat for Christians or, separated by a thousand years (Rev. 20.2-7) for the great white throne to be judged and cast into hell is THE choice God gives you. He does everything possible with His way of doing things to convince you not to go there.

My prayers go out to you.
Thank you Jesus,
Amen.

Faithful

11-28-2006, 09:40 PM

Juliet,

You need to read the Word of God. Read what Paul said (and Gal. 1.16, God was "pleased to reveal His Son in me" during the 3 years when he learned about Jesus and grew spritually after His Damascus road experience of seeing the resurrected Lord),

Acts 13.29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) "When they had fulfilled all the prophecies concerning his death, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb. 30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) But God raised him from the dead! 31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) And he appeared over a period of many days to those who had gone with him from Galilee to Jerusalem-these are his witnesses to the people of Israel.

32 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) "And now Barnabas and I are here to bring you this Good News. God's promise to our ancestors has come true in our own time, 33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) in that God raised Jesus. This is what the second psalm is talking about when it says concerning Jesus,

`You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father.*' Or Today I reveal you as my Son. Ps 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa002.html#7).

34 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) For God had promised to raise him from the dead, never again to die. This is stated in the Scripture that says, `I will give you the sacred blessings I promised to David.'*Isa 55:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa055.html#3). 35 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) Another psalm explains more fully, saying, `You will not allow your Holy One to rot in the grave.'*Ps 16:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa016.html#10). 36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) Now this is not a reference to David, for after David had served his generation according to the will of God, he died and was buried, and his body decayed. 37 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) No, it was a reference to someone else-someone whom God raised and whose body did not decay.

38 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) "Brothers, listen! In this man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins. 39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) Everyone who believes in him is freed from all guilt and declared right with God-something the Jewish law could never do. 40 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#) Be careful! Don't let the prophets' words apply to you. For they said,

41 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Act&chapter=13&translation=nltp&x=15&y=10#)
`Look, you mockers,
be amazed and die!
For I am doing something in your own day,
something you wouldn't believe
even if someone told you about it.'* "Hab 1:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hab/Hab001.html#5).

Churchwork

12-22-2006, 01:45 AM

Rambo123UK,

even if it were proven that humans (or any other creature) were working towards 'perfection' then this would only prove that we had not existed forever. Since it is known that the big bang can be placed between 13 and 20 billion years ago, that the solar system formed some 4.6 billion years ago, that hominins split from the ape lineage somewhere in excess of 6 million years ago, the genus Homo appeared in the region of 2.8 million years ago and that physiologically modern human being came into being somewhere around 125,000 years ago, then this fact is patently obvious. In any case, we can imagine such a progression towards perfection as an asymptotically flat curve - it starts out as a steep progression but then flattens out so that it would take an infinite time to reach perfection
We know when the body of dust (Gen. 2.7) was forming the last 13.7 billion years to reach its point of God's desire about 6000 years ago when we were made in His image (spirit, soul and body) in the first Adam. But included in that forming of dust includes any other causes before the universe since nothing in nature happens all by itself, but is always preceded by yet another cause. This has been our experience in things we did not know the cause, but later discovered it. Just because something is vastly complicated does not mean it happens all by itself. That would be very presumptuous and lacking significant humility.
So if there had been an eternity of the past of our body forming, then surely we would be without sin by now since we can see just in these past 6000 years that there has been an exponential progression in our conscience.
The demarcation point of Adam and the pre-Adamic man is that Adam will be resurrected and pre-Adamic men will just cease to exist. Even if you don't want to be saved and go to hell, you still have to be resurrected because you are made in God's image (Gen. 1.26,27).
The exponential curve in the improvement of our conscience increases so that it approximates infinity. This shows it will not take a billion years, a million years or even 6000 years more to reach sinlessness in the saved, though the unsaved will always remain separated from God to be locked in hell forever. Do a calculation yourself by seeing the number of murders per capita each century going back the past 6000 years.
Conclusion remains: we were created and so was the universe since the dust is part of the universe that we are made out of.

More to the point, this "proof" presupposes that the biblical god exists, and that 'sin' is real. Any serious proof of the existence of god cannot use this as a starting point.
The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible makes no assumption first about if God exists or if Jesus is God, but through the Proof we discover that Jesus is God. The burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. Sin is not assumed either, but we obviously put people in jail because they do wrong. This is sin as are many other kinds. I am glad your qualification for a starting point has been met in the 4 Step Proof.

Much as you might not like it, quantum mechanics can be acausal. The early universe, if you think back and reverse the big bang process, must have once been smaller than the planck length - and thus also causality would not have applied. Taking it further, it would follow that the start of the universe could be likened to a naked singularity - and again, causality and in fact, normal physical laws - do not apply here. You might not like it, but your refusal to accept quantum mechanical principles marks you out as an ostrich. You stick your head in the sand when confronted with things you don't want to see or hear. Quantum mechanics is the most heavilly tested scientific theory there is, and proven to give the most accurate results.
Quantum mechanics has never been proven to be acausal. Just because you are not smart enough to see the cause does not meant the cause is not there. Fairy tales of it happened all by itself are without evidence. Just because something is very small also is not cause to think it does not have its component causes. Thus, we must accept the fact that there is a cause to the bing bang or the moment preceding it. The common word used to describe the moment before the big big as singularity also has its natural intricacies if it is itself still in nature or material existence and space.
Now if you want to define this singularity as being outside of the natural realm which you are free to suggest, then it is in the supernatural, and therefore we must ask what is the supernatural agent that is the cause of all things? Creator if you will. The Designer would be God of the Bible, the Trinity, given Christ exceeding all others by comparison. Christian quantum physicists agree, thus exposing the overassuming nature of the unsaved scientists (ostriches with their heads in the sand on the way to hell). Or in other words, shutting their minds down by overassuming puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. This is not quantum mechanics, for nothing in quantum mechanics says the universe happened all by itself. Proper quantum mechanics says it doesn't know what preceded the big bang or singularity. That's proper science. Nor does God create Himself. He always ways. So if it turns out there is nothing preceding the big bang, then the cause is God. If there is a singularity, then the cause of the singularity is God since nothing in the causes and effects of the dust ultimately causes itself.

You have this the wrong way around. If you wish to prove the existence of the biblical god, you must do so. If there is a disproof for any god, then it follows that the biblical god cannot possibly exist. Conversely, proving the possibility of the existence of a generic deity does not prove that the god of the bible exists.
You're missing the point. Having proven God of the Bible in Step 1 & 2, Step 3 introduces a last stand at the O.K Corral where the skeptic will try to argue against some facet of another god that is not the attribute of God of the Bible, so Step 3 is commonly introduced to remind the skeptic so they may go onto Step 4 for their final attempt which deals with the supernatural causes and effects if they exist in gods creating gods.
You can disprove other gods, we are always pleased when you do so, but that does no damage to God of the Bible because God of the Bible is uniquely unlike any of those gods.
The 4 Step Proof of God of the Bible does two things: It proves God exists, and it proves Jesus is the only one who is God because only He said He is God and proved it in His resurrection (this is embedded in the larger portion of the Proof).

Step four is a reiteration of step one, except that the supernatural is invoked. A proof of god cannot use the existence of the supernatural as proof without first proving the existence of the supernatural! Your "proof" may satisfy god botherers but it is laughable to non believers, because it is entirely based in your acceptance of the scriptures and rejection of science. It, and you, are a joke.
The Proof does not demand the supernatural eternity of the past, but if there is a supernatural of an eternity of the past of causes and effects of gods creating gods, immaterial and space-less causes and effects, they would fall for the same reason as was shown in Step #1 because you would not still be sinning now if such an idea were true.
The Proof never went to the Scriptures first, but only through the clear reasoning of the Proof do we find the 66 books of the Bible to be the Word of God Jesus Christ, and that the Trinity held council to create at least 13.7 billion years ago. The reason why such clear reason is laughable to skeptics is because they prefer to cling onto an overassuming view of puff the magic dragon that it happened all by itself, but in science not such idea is ever proposed, so you are going against the very foundations of quantum physics and science itself. I feel it is a joke that you would use such an ad hoc and silly idea to be the reason you want to go to hell.
Just be intellectually honest with yourself that such a silly reason for rejecting God is not you real reason. Your real reason for rejecting God is because you like being in sin, and you don't want to give up the life you have now that you think you would have to change drastically to be saved. Such an assumption is not entirely correct. You can still do many of the things you are doing now after your spirit is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and you are given new life in the new creation. Eternal life does not mean you shut down shop, but you handle things better in the shop by the Holy Spirit and move through God's design to allow God to perfect you and to be with Him in the new city because you have the same eternal life.
Amen.:notworthy:

Stinge

11-13-2007, 05:09 PM

G'day,

Before I attempt (or see whether I can be bothered to attempt), a refutation of your "proof" I would like to ask you a clarifying question. Part of the scientific method when positing models or theories is that they must be able to be falsified. There are many examples that can be given for Evolution that if found would falsify the theory. If hominids were to be found in the same strata of the geologic column as ancient single celled organisms, if intermediate or transitional species were never observed (incidentally of which hundreds of examples could be given where they have been witnessed). What in your opinion would falsify your "proof"? What predictions does your "proof" make and can it be tested experimentally? I ask this as it seems that you categorically reject all disproofs, and then ban those who disagree with you. If I know what it would take to falsify your theory I can invest my efforts accordingly. If you believe you're "proof" cannot be proven wrong, ever, then it is not a valid theory and not worthy of consideration.

Please advise,

Regards,

Stinge.

Churchwork

11-19-2007, 02:49 AM

Nobody is banned for disagreeing. Not at all. There is not even a single person banned, though some accounts have been removed for belligerency and obstinacy, or other things in violation of the Board Etiquette enough times to warrant it. Read Board Etiquette #9 (http://biblocality.com/forums/rules.php#rules).

On evolution, Christians don't deny it. Rather we say it is a limited perspective since it doesn't explain the big picture because it does not deal with what occurred before the first single celled organism.

There is actually nothing you could do to disprove Step 2 of the Proof for God, because it is impossible to prove something happened all by itself and overcome trillions of examples of things with causes. But with Step 1, if you could show more child sacrifices is an improvement then you would disprove the Proof for God. This is actually a silly discussion, because these things are so obvious. Ergo, God said we all know God exists, for we all have a spirit of God-consciousness. We are without excuse.

Stinge

11-27-2007, 10:16 PM

G'day,

Considering you made the FSTDT top 100 quotes for banning someone I would assume you are lying (just like Jesus...damn I couldn't help myself, please don't ban me)

"[One Christian speaking to another]

You are banned. You are not a Christian for Christians don't accuse brothers and sisters in Christ of being non-Christian. "
Troy, Bibliocality (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=762&postcount=90) [Comments (1041) (http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=9459)] 2006-Feb-07

You are Troy aren't you Churchwork? Anyway, this is a trivial point and not what I'm here to discuss.

On evolution, Christians don't deny it. Rather we say it is a limited perspective since it doesn't explain the big picture because it does not deal with what occurred before the first single celled organism.

I'm intrigued, where in the Bible can I learn more about God's wonderful use of Evolution to create man? Surely it must be an excellent read finding out all the details of how we came to be over billions of years. There must have been a printing error in my bible as I can't find the details anywhere? Or did God omit the details because he holds the patent on the process and doesn't want to divulge his trade secrets? Crafty bugger that God making us believe he just created us instantly instead of over billions of years.

You say you believe in evolution, but it doesn't explain the big picture as we as yet do not understand how abiogenesis occurred. It still explains an ENORMOUS amount more than "God did it". And what happens if man in the coming years does figure out how life began from natural processes and is able to recreate it? What place then for the God of the Bible and its dubious creation story?

As Richard Dawkins shows in the God Delusion, Evolution is a consciousness raiser, it opens our eyes to the idea that if such complex beings as ourselves can be the product of natural processes and sufficient time, why can't the Universe have evolved from simpler to more complex structures without the need of a god. Admittedly, this doesn't explain the "big picture" of why there is something rather than nothing, but just because we don't currently know how abiogenesis occurred or exactly how the universe came into existence, we shouldn't make stuff up like "God did it" to fill the gaps in our understanding like they did in the stupid ages, instead we should say we currently DON'T KNOW and continue to search for answers.

There is actually nothing you could do to disprove Step 2 of the Proof for God, because it is impossible to prove something happened all by itself and overcome trillions of examples of things with causes.

Step 2 (Kalaam or First Cause argument) appears to be fundamental to your "proof" yet you state there is nothing we could do to disprove it. If a portion of your proof cannot be falsified, that part of theory is not valid. Does your "proof" still hold without step 2? The answer is NO (well to be fair your proof was one of the worst I've seen and regardless of step 2 is chock full of errors and inconsistencies that have been pointed out by others, that your "proof" only succeeded in showing how entrenched you are in your god mindset...where's the intellectual honesty you tout so often?).

Yes, there are trillions of examples of things with causes, but you are looking at the macroscopic world which operates very differently from various things in the quantum world which appear to be indeterministic. If everything has a cause, as you claim, what causes virtual particles to pop into and out of existence? Don't know? How then can you claim ALL effects have a previous cause when we currently don't know how many things in the quantum world are caused?

Incidentally do you believe in free will? If so, that opens a big can of problems with cause and effect. You're step 2 would imply Hard determinism which is incompatible with free will. I had no choice but to reject the notion of god due to a long standing chain of cause and effect :)

But with Step 1, if you could show more child sacrifices is an improvement then you would disprove the Proof for God.

So all I have to do is show that more child sacrifices could be an improvement to take out the $10000. I like it, here we go:

As an interesting aside, it's funny you should use child sacrifices as your example considering these children who have been subjected to this have been sacrificed to appease various gods over the millennia. Ah the evils of religion, but I digress.

I intend show how a dramatic increase in the number of child sacrifices could result in an improvement in the human gene pool and the health of future generations.

If every child (or adults too) who were found to have any genetic or hereditary disease or disorder were sacrificed / killed before they had the opportunity to reproduce, the benefits to the human gene pool and health of future generations would be dramatic. Medical science is currently able to keep millions of people alive who would otherwise die, allowing them the opportunity to reproduce and as is the case with hereditary diseases, pass on their afflictions to the next generation. For those with currently non-curable infectious diseases, if they were to be sacrificed, the chance of them passing on the disease to others diminishes significantly. This could also be extended to a Hitleresque / Gattaca type situation where by culling the weakest genetic links (eg extremely low IQ, ugly), a vast improvement in the gene pool and health of future generation would be achieved. The more people who are sacrificed who carry inferior genetic material, the greater the improvement for future generations. Also the more we sacrifice the less strain the human race will put on the planet, with less people to feed, house and clothe. We could go one step further and try resolve diseases or conditions that occur later in life after individuals have already reproduced by sacrificing the offspring of any individual who has these afflictions (if they are hereditary like heart disease, diabetes, etc). So do your part for the Human race, sacrifice a child today! I realise I sound like Hitler at the moment but the point of the matter is, if this was to be done, the benefits and improvement to the human gene pool would be immense.

Incidentally, this is already happening on the small scale with IVF and pre-checking of embryos for hereditary diseases. Those found with problems are discarded and only "healthy" embryos implanted. Do you count abortion as child sacrifice? If so your figures for step 1 just got mighty skewed as the numbers of women having abortions has greatly increased in recent history.

The above shows how increasing child sacrifices could be a huge improvement for the human race. You ready to hand over the $10000 now? I can set you up a nice payment plan if you're a little short of cash.

Regarding your Step 1, what evidence do you have that humans can ever or are likely to attain a state of perfection from sin (or as close as is humanly possible) without referencing the Bible? What makes you think that the improvement seen in the amount of "sinning" has anything to do with god and isn't to do with the changing moral zeitgeist and actions of humans trying to better their lot. You see less murders per capita and think "god's plan is unfolding nicely, not long until we'll be sinless beings", I look at the same figures and think of the myriad of reasons crime has been reduced with a purely human cause as society develops and changes and our culture evolves with the times.

This is actually a silly discussion, because these things are so obvious. Ergo, God said we all know God exists, for we all have a spirit of God-consciousness. We are without excuse.

And you end with some Christian dribble...nice. I must have been out having a smoke when god handed out the spirit of God-consciousness or God must have been mistaken (oops not omniscient) when he said we all know God exists, 'cause I for one do not know God exists and have been shown no proof whatsoever from my touring of this site. I'll save you the trouble, I'm going to Hell, praise be to Satan (bugger that's right I don't believe in those things either).

Interested to see your response.

Cheers,

Stinge.

Churchwork

11-28-2007, 03:55 AM

The body was formed from dust. Consider the billions of years to form the body.

Since the uncreated is proven, you know God did it in your spirit of God-consciousness.

Free will is compatible with determinism. God gave you free-will. He caused it. You were created with the choice which God can foresee.

All things in quantum mechanics have a cause. They can't just happen out of nowhere all by themselves. That's silly. Nothing in nature exhibits puff the magic dragon out of nowhere.

Your conscience is seared in your claim that murdering people is an improvement. What a sick and demented world that would be if it was considered a good thing.

You know God exists, for you know the uncreated must exist because nothing in nature can pop into existence all by itself and the exponential progression of conscience shows us we would not still be sinning by now.

Therefore, if you don't want the forgiveness of God by accepting what His Son did on the cross, then what have you but an eternal separation from God when you are resurrected to hell.

Stinge

11-28-2007, 07:54 PM

G'day,

What a load of Christian drivel. Again you have aptly displayed how you are completely entrenched in your God mindset that you have created some God filter in your brain to reject all facts and logic that contradict your claims.

The body was formed from dust. Consider the billions of years to form the body.

Doesn't the bible say God created everything in 6 days, then got sleepy and napped on the 7th day? Where in the bible can i read about the billions of years to form the body or are you just cherry picking the bits of science you like and ignoring the rest and re-interpreting the 7 days of creation to be non-literal?

You also didn't provide me with the parts of the bible that detail evolution? It appears "God did it" works until we prove he didn't do certain things in the way the bible says and then Christians have to go and re-interpret the bible. And now that we have proof we came about by evolution, Christians claim that must have been how "God did it", what a crock of shit. Just keep on moving those goal posts.

Since the uncreated is proven, you know God did it in your spirit of God-consciousness.

The uncreated is only proven in your mind. Even if I conceded that there must be a first cause, something that is uncreated, what on Earth makes you think that it is a God that fills this position, let alone the God you choose to follow. What proof do you have? How has every other religion got it so wrong, yet you somehow chose the right God to worship? Had you been born in the Middle East you would be praising Allah and Mohammed. Did you just get lucky with where you were born, so you could learn the truth and be able to be saved? Do you not see the idiocy of claiming so many of us are unsaved because we don't believe the same tripe that you do? If some extrordinarily complex being like your God with all his Omni powers can be the uncaused cause, why can't you concede that the uncaused cause could have been pure energy for instance and all things followed from there. Seems to me that if there is an uncaused cause, the chances that it's the most complex and supreme being possible is absolutely laughable. You concede evolution is true, and we can see how complexity evolved from simpler forms. Yet you still believe the most complex being possible is what came first.

You need to stop stating that things are proven when you are making arguments based on faith and not facts. What a quality scientific argument you posit with "you know God did it in your spirit of God-consciousness." I personally am either without a spirit of God-consciousness or don't know how to access it. So since I am unable to just know these truths that those of you who have this magical ability are obviously able to just take on faith, I need you to provide me with some actual evidence.

Free will is compatible with determinism. God gave you free-will. He caused it. You were created with the choice which God can foresee.

Life must hold very little mystery for you since anything you don't know or understand you put in the "God did it" pile. How do you know such things? Did you just feel it in your God-consciousness or did you read it in the Bible and accept it as truth? At what point in our evolution did God intervene to hand out free will? How are we "free" to make choices when every choice we make is the product of a long chain of cause and effect as per your step 2? Our thoughts are a product of our brains. We can't just make a choice without any prior cause and effect or our choices could be said to uncaused which would fuck up your whole argument? Did God just give us the illusion of free will?

All things in quantum mechanics have a cause. They can't just happen out of nowhere all by themselves. That's silly. Nothing in nature exhibits puff the magic dragon out of nowhere.

Does this include your God? Or is he the exemption to the rule? Sounds like Ad Hoc reasoning to me. You will prejudicially apply the exception only to your God which is a logical fallacy.

Your conscience is seared in your claim that murdering people is an improvement. What a sick and demented world that would be if it was considered a good thing.

Oh my conscience doth burn, the pain! Good in this sense is subjective. If were talking about the actual murdering, sure, not such a good thing. The results the murdering would bring on the other hand would be very good for the health and well being of future generations and the planet. You're the one who set me the challenge of showing increasing child sacrifices could be a good thing and I think I showed how it could be very beneficial despite being very distasteful. Personally I'll wait for Scientists to find cures and genetically engineer people to be healther and disease free to achieve the same results, once you fundie's let them do stem cell research of course.

As per my previous post, included below, I was curious whether your step 1 figures have taken into account the number of abortions or "murders" as you Christians like to call them?

"Incidentally, this is already happening on the small scale with IVF and pre-checking of embryos for hereditary diseases. Those found with problems are discarded and only "healthy" embryos implanted. Do you count abortion as child sacrifice? If so your figures for step 1 just got mighty skewed as the numbers of women having abortions has greatly increased in recent history."

This kind of screening is only going to become more prollific as even couples who could reproduce normally are opting for IVF to screen the embryos and discard those with defects. Is destroying an embryo killing a human?

Your conscience is seared in your claim that murdering people is an improvement. What a sick and demented world that would be if it was considered a good thing.

Welcome to the Dark Ages of the history of your Religion where sick and demented was considered a good thing. Yeah, I've never seen any religious groups go about killing people thinking it would be an improvement. Oh hang on, what about the crusades, the inquisition. Now that I think about it, religion pretty much has held a monopoly on killing people with different beliefs for millennia in an effort to improve matters by killing the heathens and heretics. The Bible has more instances of murder, killing and mass genocide than any book I could possibly think of, and most of the killing is instigated by God. "Pot Calling Kettle Award" nomination on behalf of your religion.

...the exponential progression of conscience shows us we would not still be sinning by now.

Again from my previous post, please answer the following:

"Regarding your Step 1, what evidence do you have that humans can ever or are likely to attain a state of perfection from sin (or as close as is humanly possible) without referencing the Bible? What makes you think that the improvement seen in the amount of "sinning" has anything to do with god and isn't to do with the changing moral zeitgeist and actions of humans trying to better their lot. You see less murders per capita and think "God's plan is unfolding nicely, not long until we'll be sinless beings", I look at the same figures and think of the myriad of reasons crime has been reduced with a purely human cause as society develops and changes and our culture evolves with the times."

Therefore, if you don't want the forgiveness of God by accepting what His Son did on the cross, then what have you but an eternal separation from God when you are resurrected to hell.

I do not want nor need forgiveness from any mythical beings. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins? If God is Omnipotent, surely he could have just forgiven our sins without torturing his son? What a shit parent, welfare should take his son away from him. Glad he's not my dad. If it turned out God of the Bible exists I would want nothing to do with him. At least if I did go to hell I'd be surrounded by tonnes of my friends. By the way, telling people they are going to hell only scares religious people who are too chicken shit to think for themselves.

Have a nice day,

Cheers,

Stinge

Churchwork

12-02-2007, 05:11 AM

Since Jesus is proven to have walked the earth, he would not be mythical. Since 95+% of scholars believe in the historical Jesus, then your issue is with scholars. If you can't agree with what the majority of scholars are agreed upon, then you are on your own illogical path.

The 6 days of creation are summary days of restoration; that is, they sum up the long period of restoration after God made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. This is called Gap Restoration.

Muslims know better not to believe in Islam, obviously, because 600+ years later they say Jesus never died on the cross without any evidence to support their alteration. There is no excuse for such mindless self-declarations. It doesn't matter where you live. Holding such mistaken assumptions and creating a religion around that false idea is untenable.

Stinge

12-05-2007, 11:47 PM

G'day,

Short post this time since you don't bother to actually answer the majority of my questions and those you do, the response is "God, blah blah, Jesus, blah, blah" of which I am growing very bored.

Since Jesus is proven to have walked the earth, he would not be mythical.

A HUMAN by the name of Jesus is believed to have existed. What proof have you he was the son of God? What proof have you got that he did any of the miracalous things the bible says he did (considering most of the Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus was about)?

Since 95+% of scholars believe in the historical Jesus, then your issue is with scholars. If you can't agree with what the majority of scholars are agreed upon, then you are on your own illogical path.

I need you to really look at this quote. Study it long and hard. Here it is again:

If you can't agree with what the majority of scholars are agreed upon, then you are on your own illogical path.

And once more so it really sinks in:

If you can't agree with what the majority of scholars are agreed upon, then you are on your own illogical path.

Oh that's right you only would accept what scholars say when it agrees with you're world view. Go back and look at every point where people have challenged you're retarded proof for errors and logical consistencies and then go see whether the majority of scholars would agree with you or them. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised.

The 6 days of creation are summary days of restoration; that is, they sum up the long period of restoration after God made desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. This is called Gap Restoration.

Just keep on re-interpreting the bible and moving the goal posts, as I know you will.

Muslims know better not to believe in Islam, obviously, because 600+ years later they say Jesus never died on the cross without any evidence to support their alteration. There is no excuse for such mindless self-declarations. It doesn't matter where you live. Holding such mistaken assumptions and creating a religion around that false idea is untenable.

You really are a dumb simple fucktard aren't you? (Rhetorical question) This has got to be the stupidest thing I've seen in a long, long time. Please stop using your brain ASAP as it is severely malfunctioning and doing further damage to itself.

Your challenge is pointless as you will never pay out and it feels like I'm debating a really stupid and irrational drunken chimpanzee(although that is unkind to stupid and irrational drunken chimp's). How about you let the challenge be adjudicated by a large panel of learned scholars where majority rules rather than let a drunken chimp decide.

Cheers,

Stinge.

Churchwork

12-07-2007, 08:35 PM

Since almost all scholars have continued to hold the position Paul really believed what he wrote as has been the case all centuries, then the burden on the proof is for you to show otherwise which you fail to address. By constantly asking for the proof and not responding to the answer given is a form of shutting your mind down. Paul met with the apostles he said, multiple times, and they agreed on their eyewitness testimony of the the resurrected Jesus whom they had walked with for three years. Suffice it to say, they talked more than about just the rain when they met.

Your account was removed for your profanity and abusive language. This is not a place for that kind of language. Next time, may you confront the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1) which remains unchallenged. Normally I put the person through the infraction system, but when you use the language you use, you're gone immediately.

p.s. the same view of gap restoration (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mystery.htm) has been consistent. I am merely agreeing with what scholars were clear on in the 19th century by those such as G. H. Pember.

darwinXIII

03-28-2008, 05:05 PM

Churchwork

03-28-2008, 07:09 PM

First, this is supposed to be a proof for the God of Abraham. You state in your overview that in both steps 1 and 2 you will explain why only Christ could be the true creator of the world. Your only so-called “proof” for this is that your God is causeless. However, this is not exclusive to your God. Ask any religious person, whether they believe in Yahweh, Thor, or Zeus, where his god came from, and he will tell you the same thing. He will tell you that his god is causeless. No religion has gods creating other creator gods. All gods have always been defined as being the “first cause” of the universe. Your only other piece of evidence saying that Christ must be god is your argument that none other gods compare. First, what’s your reason for saying this? Did you examine every single piece of mythology that has ever been written, only to say that God and only God was glorious enough to have created the world? And what does glory have to do with it? Where do you prove that the creator of the universe has to be glorious and loving? Why can’t he be evil? It would explain a lot of the pain and suffering that goes on in the world today.
Evil does explain suffering, but that does not justify God being the cause of suffering. Evil stems from disobedience, disobedience to the uncreated Creator. Obviously, the Creator is not being disobedient to Himself. That's silly. Regarding Jesus, none can compare to Him. Take any example you like to see that it is so. We have a world in which the God entered into His creation to take the sins of the world upon Himself to saved a people out of it which would accept His mercy and grace.

Now, lets move onto your proof. The first step says that man still sins, and therefore, the universe could not be eternal, because otherwise, man would have become sinless given the ever-increasing acceleration of our conciousness’s growth.
You misread the proof. It does not say "consciousness," but conscience. There is a difference. You need the latter.

In other words, what you are saying is that were the universe eternal, human consciousness would have grown to a state of near sinlessness, and it has not, so PRAISE JEEZUS. This is so patently absurd I am shocked that I am even dignifying it with a response. You are saying that human consciousness would have been evolving when humans didn’t even exist. For obvious reasons, the existence of human consciousness is necessary for it to evolve. I hope it should also be painfully clear that humans are necessary for human consciousness to exist. So, with these two facts in place, the idea that human consciousness would have evolved for eternity, when there was no such thing as humans to even have this consciousness, should for obvious reasons be discarded. Look at it this way: if a person were to create a machine which added to its memory 1 gigabyte of data about the world every minute, would it have the sum of all possible knowledge in its memory banks as soon as it was created? Of course not. This is because its memory banks didn’t exist, and the process of adding knowledge wasn’t going on, until it was created. Similarly, the human consciousness didn’t exist, and the process of updating it didn’t exist, until the moment humans were “created” by evolution. Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand how human consciousness evolves and matures. It doesn’t just evolve due to changes in the external world. Consciousness is, after all, an abstract concept. The only material changes that can influence it are the changes that happen in people’s brains. It is true that people realized that sacrificing to gods was a bad idea, but this didn’t just happen. This happened in the minds of those people, which did not exist for eternity, but only for a blip on the cosmic scale of time. Because step 1 says that an abstract concept could evolve due to material changes before he concept was even conceived, it can’t be looked to.

Aside from your confusion between conscience and consciousness already noted and building a faulty argument from your misconstruing conscience for consciousness, what you are failing to look into and understand is the law of approximation to eternity which is fully explained in Step 1 already. To repeat, that which approximates to exist in the eternity of the past is deemed as having existed for eternity. Thus man would not still be sinning by now given the evidence we have which shows an exponential progression of conscience from antiquity to today, e.g. virtually no more child sacrifices, and several other examples cited. All we have is the evidence of this data point which is unchallenged.

Think of it this way: pretend there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then man's existence would have existed in that past of cause of effects close enough to that eternity of the past, he would approximate having existed for eternity (according to calculus) and would have had an eternity to reach sinlessness after having been in a state of sinfulness. Since man still sins, obviously there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects. The universe was created by the uncreated creator.

Step 2 is a variation on the basic “first cause” argument. The third paragraph is where your house of cards begins to fall. I’ve already pulled out one of the foundations when I showed you that human consciousness cannot possibly evolve without humans to envision it. You say that all things in nature have a cause, at least that we have observed, and therefore, it is very improbable that the universe could just spring into existence. However, given an infinite amount of time, anything can happen, however improbable. It has been noted that subatomic particles spring seemingly from nothing in the vacuum of space. Why then, given enough time, could the universe not spring into existence in a “big bang”? You get around this by saying that an eternal universe is impossible, shown in step 1. I already burned down the straw man that was step 1, so an eternal universe is still possible. When referring back to step 1, you then make the mind-boggling leap that the God of the Bible must be God, because he is the only one that is of the nature of the god you just “proved” must exist. Again, were do you draw these conclusions? Every ideology in the world worships a god nearly identical to your own, with respect to the creation of the world. What makes your god so special that he must exist?
Don't think of Step 2 as some unspecified first cause argument, but rather just let the evidence guide you which is to say, since nothing in nature happens all by itself and always has a cause, then the universe can't cause itself. We are left with only one possibility, the universe was caused by the uncaused if we trust the weight of the evidence we see trillions of things with causes but nothing that without a cause.

It is a faulty argument to pick the most complicated subject matter on quantum mechanics of which there are varied many opinions as there are scientists and claim that something happens all by itself when there is nothing to suggest it. Just because you are not smart enough does not mean it is without a cause like all things we have seen have causes. That strikes as arrogant to the nth degree.

It is also illogical infinity means anything can happen. That assumption is without basis. Things do happen, yes, but there is no grounds to say anything can happen. A dog who has no wings today can't grow wings in a day and start flying. Silly.

The Big Bang happened which was caused then by the uncreated creator. And you ask about why Jesus is the One. He is the One Uncreated Creator because none can compare to Him which you can easily determine by comparison. Pick any comparison you like to see that it is so.

Since you could not overturn the proof of Step 1 & 2, they remain unchallenged. Step 3 is important because the error made so often should be addressed.

What you do in step 3 is very crafty. Did you take debate when you were a child? You basically ensure that nobody can fully destroy your argument by saying that God is by definition uncreated, and we cannot talk about him as having a creator. This type of thing also works for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I am telling you that the FSM is by definition uncaused, then FSM becomes just as plausible under this proof. And, every god ever made is supposed to be “uncaused.” The argument that God is uncaused, and therefore, must exist, is not exclusive to your faith at all. Now, you bring up something that REALLY pisses me off at the end of your step 3. You say that God is sinless, and perfect. Now, is this the same God we are talking about here? The same God who killed babies, and every animal on earth save two of each kind, just because man was wicked? The same one who turned a woman into salt for looking behind her? Who killed Er for no apparent reason? Who made sure that the Pharaoh would not let Moses and the Hebrews go just so that he could kill all their livestock and first-born? Who told Joshua to kill all the Amalekites? Who says that any homosexual, adulterer, witch, furry fetish, child who curses his parents, and person of any different faith should be killed? Oh, and don’t forget people who pick up sticks on Sunday. And blaspheme against him. And that is just 3 of the 66 books of fairy tales you call the Bible. If a man acted in these ways, we would have him put to death in the most painfully excrutiating way imaginable. Its time to see your idea of a “just” god for what it is: BULL.
You have misread Step 3. Step 3 is for you to try to disprove the qualities of God of the Bible, so when you try to argue against some quality that is not His Own, you are no longer arguing against the God this Proof is proving. You are arguing against something else which is in vain. We are not concerned with that since Jesus stands above all else as shown by comparison in any example you are free to choose. For example, the FSM fails because spaghetti is a physical product obviously having a cause whereas Jesus is uncreated. The uncreated supersedes the inanimate physically caused product of this world. Now you can claim the FSM is uncaused but you have nothing to base your claim and your claim is contradictory, because everyone knows spaghetti has a cause.

Certainly, there can be other claims of being uncaused, but they can't compare to Christ. Don't shut your mind down to this fact. Don't speak vaguely. If you have a contender present him, and I will show you the failure of your god.

There is consequence to sin. For example, in some of your points, they were killing their own children as child sacrifices. A holy, righteous God would respond with the annihilation of such people who would not stop doing this, and proof is, today those nations no longer exist while Israel 3 centuries later has returned to her promise land to be the center of all nations. Under your scenario, live sacrificial killing of children would go on today, televised, because you would not respond appropriately to such crimes as you defend Satan your god in this practice and blame God for stopping it apropos. The condition of such people was so far gone there was only one response.

To respond to another item, the great sin of enslaving a people for 430 years has consequence. The consequence to such grave sin is the first-born died by eating infected grain in a time of starvation, so the first-born were desperately fed that grain which should not have been eaten. The Hebrews which lived in Goshen were not affected by this plague.

And, all 66 books of God's Word are fully true since you could find no fault with any of them. What a wonderful testimony!

Praise the Lord!

Now let’s look at step 4. The first paragraph is based upon an idea which has been dismissed trifold already. The second paragraph only disproves that your god cannot be uncreated, because there could still be an eternity of creators before him and mankind would still sin. Third paragraph: why doesn’t Jesus have to be created? What is it about his nature that makes him so uncreated? The fact that he is extra buoyant? The fact that he can make his face appear on a tortilla? If you say something retarded like “I believe that wooden boat that is 450 feet long with one 18 sq. inch window for ventilation safely carried 2 of every animal for 40 days while more water than there is on earth rained and caused a flood of which there is no evidence and which was caused by a magical pixie who created man with evil, but instead of actually fixing their evil, just killed them all,” then YOU should ask yourself, “Why is it that people who are saved (from superstitious idiocy) understand so well how dumb my beliefs are?” One simply cannot overlook the delusion religion gives through superstition and fairy tales. The rest of your so-called “proof” is a bunch of Christian propaganda, plus a nod to the most pathetic argument of all, Pascal’s wager. I just wasted a lot of my time responding to your poorly-written experiment in stupidity, but if it makes just one person question their faith, I know that I wasted it for a good cause.
PS: Just drop me a line when you want to know who to make the check out to.
Since it was shown that the uncreated creator must exist and your attempt to disprove this failed, it stands (as was shown by my response herein). And since Jesus meets that criteria and stands above all comparison, we have a clear victory.

And man's existence approximates an existence in eternity past if such an eternity of the past existed, therefore, man would not still be sinning according to the exponential progression of conscience (also clearly observed).

Do we use the argument of the ark to prove Jesus? No. In fact, we don't even need to use anything of the Bible except the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4151&postcount=1) of His resurrection as Jesus Himself said that is the Proof He is Uncreated, for who could resurrect on the 3rd day if He was not the true uncreated Creator?

Part of your problem is professing challengers to Christ in a vague way, but never dealing specifically. In this case the devil is not in the details but in your vagaries to not realize the truth, none can compare to Christ.

Praise the Lord!

The $10,000 for being able to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God is at least thankfully growing interest since it is without to date any challengers and stands as a beacon nobody could disprove the Proof for God of the Bible. And I am glad you could find no grammer or organizational mistakes in the 4 Step Proof for God, otherwise, I could have fixed them. Though you can accuse you can't back up your accusation.

darwinXIII

03-28-2008, 10:05 PM

Churchwork

03-28-2008, 11:11 PM

Alright, let's start at the very beginning. You once again assert that none can compare to Christ. However, even if we are to accept that Christ is the best God that we have thought up, it still doesn't prove anything. There are infinite ways that Christ could be better. How about, instead of healing just a few people, he decided to rid the world of all suffering? Millions of children are dying in Africa, and yet all your god can do is to show his face on a grilled-cheese sandwich. You're right, nothing else compares.
To rid the world of all suffering like magic is not reality, because suffering is the natural consequence of sin, and sin definitely transpired. You would be after a fantasy, not reality. In the long-run reality is better, so we choose life. God shows Himself in their suffering to show how evil man is in causing these children to suffer, why hell must exist and sin must be punished. The children will be saved in resurrection and shall have far greater things ahead of them, but for those that caused their suffering, their torment in hell for all eternity is not something you should wish upon your worst enemy. There is not a single way to my mind and none you have shown to make Christ better. Thus far, you have failed; or succeeded in showing Jesus is the Christ, our Lord and Savior. Praise the Lord!

Now, lets move onto the next part. It is true that I use consciousness instead of conscience, but by consciousness, I mean consciousness of evil. In other words, conscience. Now, your law of approximation to eternity sounds cool, but it is retarded. Mankind hasn't existed for eternity. You can misquote all sorts of things from your calculus textbook, but sometimes, common sense just prevails. Second, what you say next is completely idiotic. You say that since man has existed for close to eternity, it approximates to eternity. No atheist believes that. We believe that modern man has existed for a few thousand years, no more. That is not at all close to eternity. There could still have been an eternity of cause and effects, but none of them influenced us or out conscience, because WE WEREN'T AROUND FOR IT. You don't respond to my example of the omniscient robot, so your entire argument falls based on that.
Silly rationalizing. Consciousness is awareness of one's self, surroundings and so forth, even conscience, but you never specified conscience even once to show you had been mistaken and sloppy in reading and now trying to cover up your mistake. Funny. Indeed, it is retarded to shut your mind down to the fact that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, man's existence would have been derived from that past and approximated within it to approach an infinity for our purposes. There is no way around this for you to escape this common sense. Using your own words, you are being idiotic, again, shutting your mind down to proper thinking. Whether man came into existence yesterday or 10 million or 10 billion years ago makes no difference; for, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects man yet still would have existed from that past of approximating to eternity and no longer still be sinning according to the exponential progression of conscience. And God is not an omniscient Robot. It is His prerogative to choose when to create and input His redemptive design in His appropriate time span before the new city and new earth is attained all of which is done righteously according to His good will and nature. All you are doing is manifesting your hostility towards Him without just cause. That is why Hell exists. God accounts for those who reject His mercy towards your corrupted nature. You can't be annihilated because you are made in His image, so you will be resurrected for Hell. How sad for you.

Your next response is a real lesson in douchebaggery. You resort to insulting my intelligence so that you don't have to actually answer my arguments. I already show you that matter DOES appear without a seeming cause, so it is only a matter of time before a universe would appear.
You did not show that matter appears without a cause. You would be delusional. Presuming something without any evidence to support it is not "seeming", but is in your case wanting to something to rationalize your hostility to God of the Bible. Your lack of intelligence is not being insulted nor is it the cause of you presuming something happens all by itself without evidence; rather, it is your belligerency, mindlessness, hostility and disobedience to not only God but common sense in which there are trillions of things with causes and nothing solidly shown to have no cause. Even a small child or someone with a low IQ has not made the mistake you made. I'm embarrassed for you.

But let's move on to the next part, Step 3. You accuse me of attacking qualities that are not God's own. And yet, I provide you with numerous examples of what god did and said, and they are his own. Your only response to what they did is that "they were killing their children as sacrifices." Now, obviously, they didn't kill all their children. Some of them had to live for the race to continue, and they must have known that. So, what your god decided to do was to kill EVERY ONE of them. Instead of only killing those who were guilty, he decided to kill all of them, even the babes who were to be slaughtered anyway, and those who weren't. What a dick. And yes, I found no fault with any of the 66 books of the Bible. Besides, of course, the disgusting examples of bigotry, hatred and intolerance condoned by your dickhead of a god. And, in the NEXT PARAGRAPH, the obvious fallacy with Noah's Ark. Now, the next line is the part that really gets me. With religion, everything has to be perfect. All the things which you believe, down to the last syllable, must be true. After all, they are supposed to be God's word, are they not? So, in other words, if just one thing is found to be wrong, you have to throw it out, because then you know it is not the word of a perfect god. You pretty much accept that Noah's ark is bullcrap, because you don't really make any kind of a challenge to it. Therefore, everything ought to be thrown out.
I did not say you attacked God with qualities that are not His own, but rather that is the point of Step 3 not to make that mistake which so many do.

I am going to have to give you an infraction for saying "dickhead". That is uncalled for. You can make false claims against God all you like, but fortunately, you can't back it up. Praise God!

Understand what happened. These nations in this practice of child sacrifices was going on generation after generation and would not cease. They would war to preserve their practices of their gods. Understand that sometimes God did preserve some of the people out of them and in other cases destroyed them all accordingly since such practices were so vile.

I find no problem with Noah's Ark. There were many great floods in antiquity which had massive local ramifications. The flood was not a global flood but a flood that was considered of their known world. Such stories do not get made up out of nowhere. They have some basis. Floods were devastating events. You lack compassion to appreciate this. Does it still not remain the fact that you can't find a single fault with the Bible? Funny. You keep arguing but never actually address specifically an problems with the Bible. Why blow so much smoke?

Second, the minimal facts argument is faulty at best, because of the nature of religion, which I just described to you. However, you are using it wrong. You go right from dismissing Noah's Ark to assuming that the resurrection of Jesus is a fact. You know nothing of the sort. That is, unless you can prove why he is better than these gods: Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Agasaya, Athtart, Baal, Baku, Brahma, Camalus, Chac, Ea, El, Emma-o, Eos, Frigg, Gaia, Gu, Hai, Hoderi, Ibis, Jord, Kane, Kapo, Kari, Ki, Kojin, Lares, Maeve, Marduk, Manua, Maui, Maya, Miro, Mixcoatl, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanaja, Neith, Nott, Ops, Oro, Pales, Phoebe, Ra, Rhea, Septu, Seth, Seti, Shu, Sif, Valkyries, and Yu-huang, to name a few. And even if you do manage to prove that he is a more virtuous or loving god than any of the other gods out there, you still need to explain why that proves his existence. A more desirable myth is by no means a true one. Any god who is said to have powers of creation is just as easily a creator of this world as yours is.
You are the one mentioning Noah's Ark. I am just responding to you and also telling you that the MFA is the key, not all the periphery items you bring up. Jesus is telling us MFA is the key, so we hinge His authority and power on His proof of His resurrection. Only Jesus entered into creation and atoned for the sins of the world by His death and showed the power of His resurrection fully documenting it. Nobody is more well documented in antiquity than is Jesus so you can't contend against the historical Jesus on that basis. You will have to try another tactic, though I am sure you will fail there also. By comparison you can Jesus is the One and Only Uncreated Creator.

Fact: none of these gods had a resurrection preceding the resurrection of Christ. Sometimes there were claims of resurrection after Jesus, but nothing that was multiply attested like was the case in the 12 different group settings of Jesus' resurrection (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm).

Churchwork

03-28-2008, 11:11 PM

Alright, let's start at the very beginning. You once again assert that none can compare to Christ. However, even if we are to accept that Christ is the best God that we have thought up, it still doesn't prove anything. There are infinite ways that Christ could be better. How about, instead of healing just a few people, he decided to rid the world of all suffering? Millions of children are dying in Africa, and yet all your god can do is to show his face on a grilled-cheese sandwich. You're right, nothing else compares.
To rid the world of all suffering like magic is not reality, because suffering is the natural consequence of sin, and sin definitely transpired. You would be after a fantasy, not reality. In the long-run reality is better, so we choose life. God shows Himself in their suffering to show how evil man is in causing these children to suffer, why hell must exist and sin must be punished. The children will be saved in resurrection and shall have far greater things ahead of them, but for those that caused their suffering, their torment in hell for all eternity is not something you should wish upon your worst enemy. There is not a single way to my mind and none you have shown to make Christ better. Thus far, you have failed; or succeeded in showing Jesus is the Christ, our Lord and Savior. Praise the Lord!

Now, lets move onto the next part. It is true that I use consciousness instead of conscience, but by consciousness, I mean consciousness of evil. In other words, conscience. Now, your law of approximation to eternity sounds cool, but it is retarded. Mankind hasn't existed for eternity. You can misquote all sorts of things from your calculus textbook, but sometimes, common sense just prevails. Second, what you say next is completely idiotic. You say that since man has existed for close to eternity, it approximates to eternity. No atheist believes that. We believe that modern man has existed for a few thousand years, no more. That is not at all close to eternity. There could still have been an eternity of cause and effects, but none of them influenced us or out conscience, because WE WEREN'T AROUND FOR IT. You don't respond to my example of the omniscient robot, so your entire argument falls based on that.
Silly rationalizing. Consciousness is awareness of one's self, surroundings and so forth, even conscience, but you never specified conscience even once to show you had been mistaken and sloppy in reading and now trying to cover up your mistake. Funny. Indeed, it is retarded to shut your mind down to the fact that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, man's existence would have been derived from that past and approximated within it to approach an infinity for our purposes. There is no way around this for you to escape this common sense. Using your own words, you are being idiotic, again, shutting your mind down to proper thinking. Whether man came into existence yesterday or 10 million or 10 billion years ago makes no difference; for, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects man yet still would have existed from that past of approximating to eternity and no longer still be sinning according to the exponential progression of conscience. And God is not an omniscient Robot. It is His prerogative to choose when to create and input His redemptive design in His appropriate time span before the new city and new earth is attained all of which is done righteously according to His good will and nature. All you are doing is manifesting your hostility towards Him without just cause. That is why Hell exists. God accounts for those who reject His mercy towards their corrupted nature. You can't be annihilated because you are made in His image, so you will be resurrected for Hell. How sad for you.

Your next response is a real lesson in douchebaggery. You resort to insulting my intelligence so that you don't have to actually answer my arguments. I already show you that matter DOES appear without a seeming cause, so it is only a matter of time before a universe would appear.
You did not show that matter appears without a cause. You would be delusional. Presuming something without any evidence to support it is not "seeming", but is in your case wanting something to rationalize your hostility to God of the Bible. Your lack of intelligence is not being insulted nor is it the cause of you presuming something happens all by itself without evidence; rather, it is your belligerency, mindlessness, hostility and disobedience to not only God but common sense in which there are trillions of things with causes and nothing solidly shown to have no cause. Even a small child or someone with a low IQ has not made the mistake you made. I'm embarrassed for you.

But let's move on to the next part, Step 3. You accuse me of attacking qualities that are not God's own. And yet, I provide you with numerous examples of what god did and said, and they are his own. Your only response to what they did is that "they were killing their children as sacrifices." Now, obviously, they didn't kill all their children. Some of them had to live for the race to continue, and they must have known that. So, what your god decided to do was to kill EVERY ONE of them. Instead of only killing those who were guilty, he decided to kill all of them, even the babes who were to be slaughtered anyway, and those who weren't. What a dick. And yes, I found no fault with any of the 66 books of the Bible. Besides, of course, the disgusting examples of bigotry, hatred and intolerance condoned by your dickhead of a god. And, in the NEXT PARAGRAPH, the obvious fallacy with Noah's Ark. Now, the next line is the part that really gets me. With religion, everything has to be perfect. All the things which you believe, down to the last syllable, must be true. After all, they are supposed to be God's word, are they not? So, in other words, if just one thing is found to be wrong, you have to throw it out, because then you know it is not the word of a perfect god. You pretty much accept that Noah's ark is bullcrap, because you don't really make any kind of a challenge to it. Therefore, everything ought to be thrown out.
You do attack God with qualities that are not His own for you try to paint Him as an evil being and I showed you how you failed in your attempt. And how sad for you that you want to live in a world of an evil creator. That is a reflection of your own disturbed mind. The point of Step 3 is not to make that mistake of misrepresenting by misunderstanding and misreading.

I am going to have to give you an infraction for saying "dickhead". That is uncalled for. You can make false claims against God all you like, but fortunately, you can't back it up. Praise God!

Understand what happened. These nations in this practice of child sacrifices was going on generation after generation and would not cease. They would war to preserve their practices of their gods. Understand that sometimes God did preserve some of the people out of them and in other cases destroyed them all accordingly since such practices were so vile. Think of it this way: even in some of those societies if just one person was left, they would carry on that same practice. This was shown to be the case time and time again. And in fact Israel suffered for it because Israel refuse to finish off some of those evil nations, which then built up again and Israel had to defend themselves in war against them yet again. There is reason and support for the actions God calls for.

I find no problem with Noah's Ark. There were many great floods in antiquity which had massive local ramifications. The flood was not a global flood but a flood that was considered of their known world. Such stories do not get made up out of nowhere. They have some basis. Floods were devastating events. You lack compassion to appreciate this. Does it still not remain the fact that you can't find a single fault with the Bible? Funny. You keep arguing but never actually address specifically an problems with the Bible. Why blow so much smoke?

Second, the minimal facts argument is faulty at best, because of the nature of religion, which I just described to you. However, you are using it wrong. You go right from dismissing Noah's Ark to assuming that the resurrection of Jesus is a fact. You know nothing of the sort. That is, unless you can prove why he is better than these gods: Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Quetzlcoatl, Agasaya, Athtart, Baal, Baku, Brahma, Camalus, Chac, Ea, El, Emma-o, Eos, Frigg, Gaia, Gu, Hai, Hoderi, Ibis, Jord, Kane, Kapo, Kari, Ki, Kojin, Lares, Maeve, Marduk, Manua, Maui, Maya, Miro, Mixcoatl, Mot, Mummu, Nammu, Nanaja, Neith, Nott, Ops, Oro, Pales, Phoebe, Ra, Rhea, Septu, Seth, Seti, Shu, Sif, Valkyries, and Yu-huang, to name a few. And even if you do manage to prove that he is a more virtuous or loving god than any of the other gods out there, you still need to explain why that proves his existence. A more desirable myth is by no means a true one. Any god who is said to have powers of creation is just as easily a creator of this world as yours is.
You are the one mentioning Noah's Ark. I am just responding to you and also telling you that the MFA is the key, not all the periphery items you bring up. Jesus is telling us MFA is the key, so we hinge His authority and power on His proof of His resurrection. Only Jesus entered into creation and atoned for the sins of the world by His precious blood and showed the power of His resurrection fully documenting it. Nobody is more well documented in antiquity than is Jesus so you can't contend against the historical Jesus on that basis. You will have to try another tactic, though I am sure you will fail there also. By comparison you can Jesus is the One and Only Uncreated Creator.

Fact: none of these gods had a resurrection preceding the resurrection of Christ. Sometimes there were claims of resurrection after Jesus, but nothing that was multiply attested like was the case in the 12 different group settings of Jesus' resurrection (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm), not to mention the many extra-Biblical accounts (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/129facts.htm) within the first and second centuries.

darwinXIII

03-29-2008, 11:02 AM

Churchwork

03-29-2008, 02:14 PM

First off, you claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a fact. However, you don't know that. The only reports of Jesus's resurrection came from 150 year after his death. They were based upon hearsay and rumors, and they have nothing to suggest that they are a reliable source of information. If the stain on the Shroud of Turin were carbon-dated to Easter Day
, 33 AD, then you might have some evidence. But the only "evidence" you have is hearsay and mythology.
You are filled with mistaken assumptions. I did not say that the resurrection was a fact, but that it is proven as fact. The reports of Jesus' resurrection did not occur 150 years after only but immediately upon his resurrection orally. How silly to think otherwise that nobody said anything until 150 years later. When someone has a near death experience today to give an analogy people don't wait 150 years to talk about it. They report it immediately. The 66 books were completed within the first century. Soon after the events at hand people began to write. When we say 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2 were written within about 20 years of Jesus' death we don't say it was started to be written at that time but we know with certainty it was finalized at that time. Almost all scholars agree these are the earliest books including the book of James. What does Paul say? He says what was preached early on of the resurrection of Jesus is the same thing that was agreed when he met with James, Peter and John and other apostles when they met (within 5 years of Jesus' death) and discussed their mutual multiple group eyewitness testimonies. Nothing in antiquity is so near to the events at hand and recorded so early on. This holds the highest of historical standards possible. In conclusion there is no basis for your beliefs. And using the Minimal Facts Approach, you don't need to discuss periphery things like the Shroud of Turin. You can make a case for it to HELP prove the resurrection, but it is not necessary. Jesus never said the Shroud of Turin is the key. He said the proof of His resurrection is the key. That is what I have presented to you, using the Minimal Facts Approach. Wake up!

You seem to completely misunderstand the next part of my argument. I was using conciousness in the place of conscience, just swap the words and you should be fine. Second, mankind does not "approximate" to having existed for eternity. Mankind approximates to having existed for 10,000 years. You completely misunderstand my example of the robot. A robot who was designed to increase his knowledge exponentially would not approximate to having existed for eternity. This is basic common sense. You are maligning the laws of calculus for your own foolish, illogical means.
Don't swap consciousness for conscience, because consciousness is not specifically conscience. People will not understand what you are talking about as you had not previous to your rationalizing mentioned conscience even once. You are missing the point of the approximation to an eternity of the past. IF there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects then according to calculus all things not just man's existence would have approximated to the eternity of that past. As was said, I repeat yet again, whether man first came into being yesterday or a million years ago makes no difference then. You overlooked this that which was already said. In your example of a robot you admit the robot was designed; similarly, man was created also and did not happen all by himself. You have not yet seen the error in your thinking. May you do so now. Indeed, if you are created or designed you did not approximate from a supposed eternity of the past but were created such that you were not derived from a faulty eternity of the past, but were created by the uncreated Creator.

N est, you claim I make false statements against god. This is false. Every cruel act, every arbitrary law, it is all gods hand or his will as can be found in the first 3 books of the Bible. Second, how do I lack "compassion"? I understand that floods are devestating events. I never said they weren't. However, there is in fact a basis for your flood story. In what is now Iraq, there was a great flood along the Euphrades, a few hundred miles south of Baghdad. A resourceful king commandeered a commercial barge when he saw the flood water was rising. I was filled with merchandise, and he rode the storm out until he ran aground, and then, thankful he had survived, he offered a sacrifice in a nearby temple. There was no God, no sinners, no animals two by two. It was just an interesting piece of folklore that got turned into your holy book. I said that every piece of the Bible has to be perfect, otherwise it isnt god's word. And since a story was so obviously just plagairised by men, you have to throw out your "holy" book. Now, if you just look to the last line, you will see it holds true. You can't prove Jesus existed or was divine, besides some hearsay and rumors written years after his death. So don't point to this as evidence of the true god. Osiris was also said to have risen from the dead, long before Jesus. Unless you prove that Jesus realy did rise from the dead, and to do that, you must prove that the Bible is infallible, nothing in this argument stands.
You showed no arbitrary cruel act by God in any book of the Bible. Just saying so doesn't count. You need to look at the context and why it was done. Nothing in this intelligent design is arbitrary, but always has a reason just as all things in nature have a cause and effect and nothing happens all by itself. The story of Noah's Ark is indeed true unless shown otherwise for it is well documented and supported by nature and human response to natural disasters. Somebody did indeed gather a great many animals two by two in a boat he built because of an impending flood that God revealed to him would happen. This was not plagiarized but may have even happened on more than one occasion or they are all talking of the same incident time long ago. Moreover, periphery items do not do damage to the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1) which only concerns itself with the proof of Jesus' resurrection. In other words, you don't need to even claim the whole Bible is inerrant since the Minimal Facts Approach only focuses on the minimal central proof of whether Jesus is God. This is the claim that Jesus makes. You could disagree with something Jesus said in His quoting the Old Testament though you would have to prove it just the same.

Osiris was not resurrected in any document prior to the 66 books of the Bible, nor did he have multiple group recorded eyewitness testimony (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm). Just saying so does not count. Many tried to copy the resurrection of Jesus and there are a number of documents produced after the time of Jesus's resurrection. As well, commentary on Osiris is so sparse it does not have the substantiated documentation that Jesus has.

What matters is that we have multiple eyewitness accounts reported and most scholars (more than 95% in the last half century-as documented by Gary R. Habermas, leading scholar the on the resurrection) are in agreement Paul was authentic in what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. As the apostles went to their martyrdom and we know people do not die for a claim they know is a lie, the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. Modern day psychology says group hallucinations are impossible, so when the apostles said they touched, walked with, ate with and spoke with Jesus in His resurrected physical state, and they agreed on the reason for His doing this, we are standing on solid evidential ground whereas you have nothing to support your ideas except hostility and disobedience to your God. In fact, in the Guinness Book of Records the lawyer who won the most court cases in a row (245) said the case for the resurrection of Jesus is the best case he has ever seen.

By the way your spelling is atrocious. Try to use the spell checker and show some consideration.

darwinXIII

03-29-2008, 03:51 PM

For those of you who believe that the God of the Bible is perfect and just, please give me justifications for these following occurences:
God punishes all men, women, children, and animals because humans have wickedness in their thoughts. (Gen 6:7)
God feels remorse, a decidedly human emotion. (Gen 6:6)
God punishes the entire human race because two people ate an apple. (Gen 3:16, 17)
God gets Abram to kill some animals for him, and the needless bloodshed makes him feel better. (Gen 15:9, 10)
God turns a woman into a pillar of salt for looking behind her. (Gen 19:26)
God kills Er for no reason. (Gen 38:7)
God decides to kill Moses for not having his son circumcised. (Ex 4:24-26)
God says that children should be put to death for hitting or cursing their parents. (Ex 21:15, 17)
God says not to allow a witch to live. (22:18)
Bestiality is punishable by death. (22:19)
Anybody who sacrifices to any god besides the god of the Bible has to be "utterly destroyed." (22:20)
God tells the Israelites to kill everyone in the promised land when they get there. (23:27)
God feels better when you kill a bunch of animals, chop them up, wave their body parts in the air, burn the bodies, and sprinkle the blood all around. (29:11-37)
Work on the Sabbath, and you get killed. (31:14)
God tells the sons of Levi to kill every man his neighbor. This results in 3000 deaths. (32:27-28)
Then he kill some more people wit a plague (32:35)
Again, work, or even start a fire, on Sunday, and die. (35:2-3)
Priests at the tabernacle must not uncover their heads, rip their clothes, have holy oil on them when they leave, or drink wine, or God will kill them and curse all their people. (Lev 10:1-3)
God gives the Canaanites leprosy so that Moses can take their land. (14:34)
Both people who commit adultery must be executed(20:10)
If a man has sex with his mother or step-mother, they both must die. (20:11)
If a man sleeps with his daughter in law, they both must die. (20:12)
If a man lies with another man... you guessed it! (20:13)
"Lie" with both your wife and mother-in-law (why anybody, least of all the creator of the universe, would be thinking about this stuff, is beyond me) yep, you all must be burned. (20:14)
If anybody didnt get the message the first time, bestiality is death for the man and the beast. (20:15-16)
Anyone with "familiar spirits" is to be stoned to death. (20:27)
Blasphemy means the entire community gets to stone you to death. (24:10-23)
God tells the israelites to make slaves out of their neighbors and families if they dont believe in him. (25:44-46)
God kills people who look at holy things which are covered. (Numbers 4:15, 20)
people complained, and God killed them all by burning. (11:1)
God punishes chldren because of their great-grandfathers. (14:18)
Again, somebody picks up sticks on the sabbath, and gets stoned, under God's order. (15:32-36)
God might kill you for going to church. (18: 3, 22, 32)
Ask God for it, and he will kill an entire city for you. (21:3)
God kills some of his people with "fiery serpents" (21:6)
God lets Moses kill all the Amorites. Xenophobia: It's FUN! (21:34-35)
God's people will drink the blood of the slain. (23:24)
God is as strong as a fairy-tale creature, and he wil kill all the nations, break their bones, and pierce them with his arrows. (24:8)
Again, God endorses the murder of the canaanites, but if even one survives,, God will kill all the Israelites. (33:55-56)
That's all for now, but eventually I hope to transcribe the juicy bits of all 66 books, proving once and for all that the God of the Bible cannot POSSIBLY be the God that created us, by your own logic, Troy.
And, if anyone wants to prove their faith, then you should drink Drano and put venomous snakes all over your bodies, take a video, and if you are still alive, post it. (Mark 16:17-18)

Churchwork

03-29-2008, 07:52 PM

darwinx,

We have already covered this. They were involved in child sacrifices and they would not stop. The only thing that would finally stop them is for their own deaths to occur. That is how corrupted men were that then this becomes the only solution. Praise God no longer do those peoples exist whereas you keep defending them and if you had it your way they would continue to murder their own children in child sacrifices. Even in today's society some crimes are so horrific, man feels the only solution is to put that criminal to death. Even a lifetime in jail won't solve the problem apparently.

To answer all items, sin must be punished. Whereas you would like sin not to be punished, God is a righteous God and does not adhere to your selfish in-compassionate, unjust and insensitive ways.

Your problem is being legalistic in your interpretations. What the Bible is saying is that if someone is strong in the faith all else being equal they would be more equipped to recover from some poisoning. If you have the Holy Spirit working in you and you inadvertently drink some poison not of your own accord, God will give you the strength you would not have had to recover from such an unfortunate occurrence.

May our discussion reveal to you that you are always wrong, so you should repent, and give your life to Christ. Stop being so selfish and self-involved and give it up so that you may be saved from your selfishness and sin nature that surely will be punished in hell if you don't. How many times must you be wrong to realize you are wrong? 100 times? 1,000 times? A reasonable person does not have to be wrong so many times to realize he is wrong. You need not be wrong 10,000 times to know you are wrong. If anything, it should be a sign you are going to hell because if you have not repented after 100 times being wrong, it is not likely you ever will. How sad for you. In fact, most people never get saved and by the age of 13 if you don't get saved it gets increasingly harder and harder to accept the truth.

And that is why the Bible says you are already condemned for hell (John 3.18) which is the only solution for your condition to spend an eternity separated from God and those He has chosen before the foundations of the world. The Word of God reveals how far gone you are. The answer was already given, and you did not respond to the explanation, but chose to repeat yourself. Each time you avoid the answer given and not deal with it, but instead repeat yourself, that is not in keeping with Board Etiquette #6. And deflecting onto other stuff while not nipping in the bud your error is also disingenuous.

darwinXIII

03-29-2008, 10:11 PM

Churchwork

03-29-2008, 11:04 PM

please, be specific. Who were the ones involved in child sacrifices? Every living thing on the face of the Earth (except for Noah)? The Canaanites? The people in the promised land? The Amorites? And even if they were, why does god tell them to kill EVERY SINGLE ONE? This includes the babies who were going to be sacrificed, as well as the babies who had nothing to do with the sacrifices. And, by the way, mass murders aren't the only thing covered in this list of atrocities. You simply skirt the entire issue here by saying "they were committing child sacrifices". This doesn't even cover one tenth of the atrocities God commits in the first 4 books of the bible. What about all the much too severe punishments (almost always death) prescribed for such harmless, victimless things like homosexuality, and working on the sabbath? What about the cruel animal sacrifices he condones? You ignore the entire issue here, and dismiss it with a inane, pointless generalizatio. Stop defending your god in the face of such atrocities. If Jesus was God, and God did half of the things that he was said to have done, than Jesus's death should have been celebrated, not condemned.
One item at a time you may specify and we can deal with it, then the next and the next. I am not going to write out a long response to each item, because you won't read it anyway. One at a time. The just punishment for generational child sacrificing is the ceasing to exist as a people. As those people continued to war on that basis and try to annihilate Israel, Israel had the full right to defend itself and stop their atrocities. However much you dislike the punishment fitting the crime, the punishment for such sin is the natural consequence to that sin. Defending those sins as being punished too severely is only a reflection of your own conscience that is seared and your darkened mind. Be specific. Which specific verse would you like to talk about first. One item at a time. Perhaps start with the one that comes off the top of your head and we can address that item next.

You continue to completely ignore what I brought up here by saying that I am in favor of child sacrifices. Thanks, now I know that whenever somebody says something that I disagree with, I will come up with an ad hominem attack, just like you. I don't believe that child sacrifices are right. I believe that they are wrong, and should be punished. However, the manner in which your God punishes them, by killing people who weren't even involved in the child sacrifices, is completely unjust. I also believe that the other 95% of this list of atrocities is unjustifiable in any way. You make no attempt to dismiss the vast majority of these statements, so I will assume you agree.
Your interpretation is twisted. In some cases it was God's will just to kill those in favor of child sacrifices while not harm say the women and children, while in other cases the whole lot had to be killed because generationally it was proven that they would grow up and reenact the same practices. There is precedence for why what was done was needed. Your problem is overlooking the obvious because you are hostile to God so through that hostility you shut your mind down to the obvious to accuse Him falsely.

Now that we are clear on that, you should really stop worshipping your god. You tell me that I am unsaved. However, you are the one who is worshipping a mass murderer, who loves to watch animals being tortured in bizarre, cruel ways. How many atrocities must you be shown, commited by God and in the name of God, before you realize that your god cannot be Jesus, and if he is, than Jesus cannot possibly be good. If I am going to hell for seeking the truth, then so be it. I would rather be in hell than spend an eternity with your sadistic, cruel, and utterly horrible fairy-tale you call god. When I look at his track record, being seperated from God actually sounds pretty good.
(On a side note, is there a 100% survival rate for Chrsitians who suffer snake bites or accidentally eat poison? Because if there isn't , I am afraid that your holy book is mistaken.)
Once saved always saved as not only the Bible teaches, but all believers know experientially and intuitively by the Holy Spirit indwelling our spirits. Since God has proven Himself time and time again, and you still can't find fault with Him, then you are presented still the choice to come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the perfect sacrifice to atone for your sins.

While you defend child sacrifices by not dealing with this problem effectively by keeping alive those who continue to engage in that activity and whom will not stop to the day they die, praise God those nations no longer exist in part because Israel listened to God in defending themselves against their atrocities. In the Bible, Israel even suffered for not finishing off some nations. Consequently, they grew up again and attacked Israel the next generation. So you accuse God and Israel of mass murder, but if Israel did not do what was required of it, it would no longer exist as a nation. Suffice it to say Israel remains and your nations you favor engaging in child sacrifices no longer exist. A reasoned person would say since Israel is still around and those evil nations no longer exist perhaps it is God's will, since those nations will no longer return. They are gone for good. You might want to resurrect them but I don't think you will succeed in reviving their waring attempts to preserve their child sacrifices and mass murdering its own enemies.

Animals were not tortured by Israel, but killed cleanly. Why bear false witness? Your evil imagination is just manifesting your own corrupted conscience.

Since God is not sadistic or cruel (Gnostics believe God is evil), and your bearing false witness of Him does not change His nature, then you should repent. Since the uncreated must exist whom is God of the Bible, and you cannot disprove the proof for God and could find nothing wrong with the verses you gave, then realize your hostility will send you to hell which you admit you want to go to hell, and I am sure you belong there if that is what you truly want.

The Bible does not say there needs be 100% survival rate for snake bites suffered by just Christians. You read it legalistically. Reading it with an open mind, you could say Christians have a higher rate of survival than non-Christians who are bitten by snakes.

Homosexuality is not a harmless thing but propagates aids and is abusive to children that grow up without a mother to corrupt further the next generation. Working on the Sabbath was a violation of God's covenant with Israel as His chosen people. If you did not keep this covenant you break your relationship with God in the first nation He revealed Himself to and whom God planned to use mightily which is to become the center of all nations. If you desecrated it and mocked it in the sight of Jews valuing it, you were to die for pretentiously being Jewish yet not valuing that which was Jewish (which creates strife and dissension); otherwise, you would be just banished and cut off from the people. Depending on your response to the Sabbath, the appropriate response was administered. Let's say the Sabbath was being honored and on that day you came and turned over tables, smashed the temple, and broke the altar. Your death was at hand. If it was not for the preservation of the Jewish law, Jesus could never have come to die a once-for-all death and show that no man could keep the law except Jesus.

Still you are not responding the explanation given for why those evil nations needed to be destroyed, but just keep repeating yourself. This is an infraction of Board Etiquette #6. Don't be a clanging bell.

The fairy tale you have of no uncreated creator and a universe that just happens all by itself is a puff the magic dragon evil idea which is simply expressing your disobedience and hostility to your creator. You're a bad guy and you know it, and as long as you continue your belligerency of not responding to the explanation given by just repeating yourself, your infractions accumulate (in other words, your mindless unsupported and misrepresenting repetition is too dull for these forums).

Temporary sacrifices point to the once for all sacrifice of Jesus. While you take glory in murdering another human being which makes you a murderer at heart, Christians view His death as bearing the sins of the world upon Himself because He was sinless and yet was put to death by sinners.

Always remember the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4195&postcount=1) which says if you were to hypothetically find a mistake in the Bible it would not do damage to the proof Jesus is God, because Jesus said the proof of His being God is in His resurrection which is proven in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 where over 95% of scholars in the past half century agree Paul was being genuine. Therein he writes he met with the apostles, including John, Peter and James (brother of Jesus) who testified together in seeing Jesus' resurrected in various multiple groups and martyred for their unchanging eyewitness testimony. Since hallucinating the same exact thing is not possible in groups, we are left with the only rational explanation: they actually did touch, talked, walked and ate with the risen Lord. What is beautiful about the MFA is there is no thought in the entire world able to counter it. The reason we have faith is because it proven whereas the unsaved have faith in what they belief without proof.

Hallelujah!

darwinXIII

03-30-2008, 11:46 AM

First, please stop the infractions. This is a response to step 3, proving that the God of the Bible cannot be Jesus, or that Jesus was really a homocidal maniac. I Think that the reason that you don't write out a response to every article mentioned is because you know that most of them are not justifiable. If you do, I will rebut you point-by-point on each of them. Again, you give no (valid) response to why these nations had to be destroyed entirely. Every nation that was mentioned in the aforementioned list of atrocities was "utterly destroyed" or "no thing that breatheth was left alive". Why did god command the deaths of the innocents? Generational child ssacrifices (which you give no evidence of, historical or Biblical), would not have gone on forever if only the people who were condoning them were put to death. Had God said "Kill the sinners, and save the young and the innocent, that you may teach them the way of the lord," then maybe that would be a just punishment. Killing everybody for what their culture does, before they even have a comprehension of what the crimes that they haven't committed yet are, is something that you cannot equate with any just god. So, if we are going to start with the first item off the top of my head, how about that whole "kill everybody of all other religions." Never in my life have I seen a more belligerent (since you are so fond of that word), intolerant, and xenophobic command. In other words, what this means is that, if you were ACTUALLY FAITHFUL to the (alleged) word of god, then you would kill all Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Wiccans (although you would do that anyway, Ex. 22:18), agnostics, and atheists. Justify that for me, and you will have defended 1 of the dozens of loopy, insane, and dangerous laws made by God.

The petty few justifications you make for the intolerant laws of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are close-minded at best, and genocidal at worst. Never mind that if gays spread HIV, then it should only affect the gay community, because it is an STD, not a contagious disease. You basically are hurting somebody for doing something to themselves, in other words, something that isnt a crime. Gays could not get married or adopt in those days, so your next point is irrelevant, and doesn't justify putting them to death. Next you go on to justify the death penalty for working on the sabbath. I am ostensibly a Jew, and yet I work on sunday. Are you saying, by justifying this law, that I should be put to death? What kind of a punishment is that? Your only other justification is an example of defiling a temple. But that is completly irrelevant. The only just response to blasphemy is shunning from the community, and maybe you could be fined for property damage. But what you are describing is in no way related to working on the sabbath. How do you justify the law that anyone who even gathers up sticks on sunday should be killed? The bible does not say that anyone who works on the sabbath is to be cut off from his people. Rather, it says that anyone who works on the sabbath is to die. SO if you truly believe that the Bible is the word of God, then I would like to see you kill all those who it commands you to. I will be at the front row at your trial. But, in the meantime, I would like to see that list of justifications. That is, if you have it.

And seriously, stop with the infractions. You issued this challenge to me in step 3 of your proof, and I am just responding to it.

Churchwork

04-04-2008, 04:12 PM

darwin,

We can summarize all your mistaken thinking by saying you have no appreciation for your sin nature that there must be consequences for sin. Sin leads to not only death but the second death which is hell.

You asked, "Why did god command the deaths of the innocents?" They aren't innocent.

"Now the Lord observed the extent of the people's wickedness, and he saw that all their thoughts were consistently and totally evil" (Gen. 6.5).

By God's infinite foreknowledge, He knows everyone and what they will become when they come of age. And everyone is born into sin.

Step 3 identifies God of the Bible we are speaking about and simply states to argue against a quality that is not His own is not a rebuttal against God of the Bible but something else. For example, His quality is to punish sin. Whether you like this or not is irrelevant. As they say, the punishment fits the crime. Criminals often don't think they did something wrong, yet they are in jail as those who are unsaved will be in hell.

In Gen. 15.32-36 a man is put to death for working on the Sabbath. Is this justified? Yes, because the covenant with God Israel has as the chosen nation is to usher in the Messiah, and the sign of that covenant is keeping the Sabbath. It's very serious business to eradicate sin.

Of course, we are no longer under the law because we have died to the law having died on the cross with Christ. We live by the spirit of the law. Today's response in the new covenant is not the same as the response under the old covenant. Different times require a different response.

I gave you an infraction for continually repeating that you don't like God's response when you haven't given a valid reason for your intolerance to Him. If you don't have a valid reason and still accuse Him, what sense is there in that? All you are doing is violating Step 3 of the 4 Step Proof for God by misrepresenting Him. These forums are for discussion and evidence, not repetitively self-declaring something without anything to support your idea. Once the answer is given accept it, especially since you can't find fault with it. If you still don't like the answer given, just remember the support for it outweighs your dislike. And since you are the accuser, the burden of the proof remains on you.

For example, you repeated, "you give no (valid) response to why these nations had to be destroyed entirely" even though I already had when I said, "generationally it was proven [in the Bible] that they would grow up and reenact the same practices". They continued to war on this basis, but praise God they no longer exist. Israel remains, you lose. The fact that the evil nations you favor no longer exist is proof enough going forward. Christians remain and those particular evil nations don't exist.

Human sacrifices in antiquity were quite common. Here are some cases (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2044) recorded in the Bible and in other records.

Apoche

07-10-2008, 05:47 AM

I'll have a go at this as well. I am quoting from this article: http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm.

My Refutation

You fail to present an actual argument. Your perfect proof can be summed up as: 'God is uncreated, because if he were created, then his creator would have a creator, and we'd have an infinite regress, but that's not possible, since we're still sinning.' This is nonsense and hand-waving (you do that a lot, together with special pleading). There is no logical connection between your assertations, really. It's like you've got two arguments going: one to prove that the Universe cannot be infinitely old (and no cosmologists or 'evolutionists' believe it is), and one to prove God exists. The latter is an example of the Kalam Argument for the Existence of God, and as such, it is not very strong. I will refute both your claims.

Exponential Increase in Global Conscience

You state:

If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

Your argument rests on this idea, that the net amount of sin in the world must decrease over time. First and foremost, I have strong reasons to doubt that such a thing as sin exists, but even if it did, I find the notion that there is less sin in the world now than there was two thousand years ago absurd. You cite a number of examples of 'sinful' and 'evil' cultures that have gone extinct (the Mayans, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Persians, etc.), and claim that this is a reflection of a natural tendency towards a more moral life. I think this is nonsense. Look at recent history, and read about Auschwitz, about Rwanda and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or the Rape of Nanjing and the Gulag -- not only are those atrocities 'sinful,' but they are even more 'sinful' than the measly human sacrifices practiced by the Mayans. Surely the death of a few upon the altars of Huitzilopochtli does not amount to the same level of 'sinfulness' as the death of millions in the Holocaust.

Furthermore, I am disturbed by you calling the Philistines and all those other peoples 'evil.' I fail to see what makes Romans evil, and why the Amorites deserved to be killed off. While I do not suggest anything, I find such thinking to be quite close to the mindset exhibited by some racists. You cannot judge non-westerners after western moral standards; and while the thought of being sacrificed in the fires of Huehueteotl is horrible to us, it was a great honour to the Aztecs. Those ancient peoples were humans, just like we are, with their own personalities and hopes and desires, and not mindless puppets serving evil and sacrificing children. Also, who were the 'Talismanics' and the 'TaoTuoKungs'?

Anyway, you continue by saying:

There are lots of data points for other examples, e.g. the murder rate and crime rate per capita have continued to go down millennia after millennia and usually, century after century.

As pointed out above, this is unproven; it's a raw assertion without any data whatsoever to back it up. I mentioned numerous examples of a 'sinful' nature that have occured in the twentieth century. And if the amount of 'sin' is decreasing, then tell me why homosexuality is becoming more accepted? I believe homosexuality is a 'sin' according to the Bible.

Your claims about Islam are misguided and insulting towards those of that faith.

Causality

You continue by saying that everything that happens has a cause, except for God. First off, the position of causality as a law is threatened by some findings in modern physics, and no amount of hand-waving from your side is going to change that fact. Second, saying that God is uncreated because he is God is special pleading, and, as FSTDT correctly identifies in her (their?) post, ad hoc. If everything has a cause, then of course God should also have a cause; but you say no, and give no proper reason for why God is uncaused.

The Nature of God

Lastly, you fail to demonstrate why the cause of the Universe has to be the God of the Bible. You seem to have anticipated this objection, and you state thusly

I know the atheist/agnostic question is if God is uncreated why can't something else, anything else, be uncreated? But, if you ask this, then you have to be intellectually honest with yourself, and do a comparison to this "anything else" with Jesus Christ. There is no comparison. Christ wins hands down every time given His nature and conduct.

However, this amounts to nothing more than hand-waving. Why would the creator have to compare to Jesus?

Summary

Your argument is not valid, and consists of numerous fallacies, false premises, and unproven assertions. Do I get mmy ten thousand dollars now?

Churchwork

07-10-2008, 07:23 PM

I have had all these discussions before so many times. The problem always is you don't look at what you are assuming if it is indeed proven or not, so by not looking at what you are assuming, you engender false ideas that flow from those mistaken assumptions. That's all that's going on. It should be noted it takes pride to assume something without the need for evidence to support it. As the Bible says, PROVE ALL THINGS.

You couldn't prove any hand waving or special pleading or that the argument is not strong, so just saying so doesn't mean it's true.

Step 2 of the proof still remains, since there is just one argument, that is, nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore, nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself and is not always existing, then we are left with only one possibility. The uncreated created who is God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ. You haven't been able to disprove this solid proof.

Notice your only to Step 2 is essentially is self-declaring your disagreement, but not providing anything to back up your disagreement.

You're confusing net sin with sin per capita. You misread Step 1 and Step 4 of the proof.

No comment was made on the general extinction of those cultures. What was pointed out is their practice of child sacrifices has ceased. That is the point I wanted to get across. As many people that died on the 20th century due to war and attempts at extermination, on a per capita basis it is still less than those previous centuries, primarily because the population exploded from the 19th to the 20th century.

You can see how dead your conscience is, because you are defending child sacrifices of those nations that now cease to exist for their evil ways. Whereas Isaac who was to be sacrificed was stopped at the altar by God to say stop the sacrifices. It is wrong. Israel stood among so many nations to stand up against this. God will choose out a people for Himself such as Israel because they were willing to listen to Him. They had been in slavery for 430 years.

Even homosexuality is dropping on a per capita basis.

Those in Islam are insulted by being show their false beliefs. I understand that, because they are being judged. Nobody likes to be judged whether they are being true or false. Ultimately the reason they do what they do is because the Koran says Jesus did not die on the cross. Six centuries later they (actually one guy in a cave all by himself, named Mohamed) just decided to make it up that Jesus did not die on the cross. If you can assume that without evidence, you can assume other things like the need to blow yourself up in the name of Allah.

Nothing in modern science even suggests something happens all by itself. You can't prove it here or anywhere. Talk to scientists, they will help you out to get your thinking straight. It's always disingenuous to try to pick the most complicated subjects to make a proof that something happens all by itself. There as many different papers written on quantum mechanics as there are theories about quantum mechanics.

Christians don't say because God exists therefore God is true; nor do we say since God is uncreated God must be true and not have a creator. Rather, we say, because nothing in nature happens all by itself, nature can't cause itself and must therefore be cause by the only known possibility which is the uncreated created.

It doesn't stand to reason if everything has a cause that God should have a cause because God is not nature. You got confused before thinking God is nature.

Since Jesus said He is God the Creator, the minimum standard of comparison would be for another person on earth claiming He is the Creator. Do you have any challengers?

Since you could find no fault with the proof for God and God being Jesus, then you should give your life to Christ. He is the best answer for all your concerns.

Actually all your posts have assumptions which you don't want to defend. This violates Board Etiquette #6. But I am trying to show you as much mercy as I can, but when it gets inordinately egregious, I will have no choice to add on infractions, because repeating myself and your not responding to that evidence supplied, shows your disingenuousness.

Apoche

07-11-2008, 04:56 AM

It should be noted it takes pride to assume something without the need for evidence to support it.

Yeah, you ought to heed your own words. Show me where I have not backed up my arguments, and I will tell you why you are wrong.

nothing in nature happens all by itself.

There are numerous fields within physics that throw doubts on concepts such as causality, and you can easily propose philosophical models that deny it altogether. Nevertheless, let us assume you are right for the sake of the argument.

Therefore, nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself and is not always existing, then we are left with only one possibility.

If you by 'nature' mean 'all that exists,' then it has to, by definition, lack a cause. Any cause of existence also exists, and by the above definition, any cause of nature is thus a part of nature. The only alternative I can see to this is saying that either nature or the universe or everything has always been around, or that it caused itself.

The uncreated created who is God of the Bible, since none can compare to Christ. You haven't been able to disprove this solid proof.

I beg your pardon, but this is one massive non sequitur. The problem is not the existence of causality, but rather that you identify the cause as the God of the Bible. It makes no difference if none can compare to God, since "the cause of nature is the God of the Bible" does not follow from that statement. Ergo, even if what you say is true about causality and none being able to compare to God, you have not proved that the world was by necessity created by God.

Notice your only to Step 2 is essentially is self-declaring your disagreement, but not providing anything to back up your disagreement.

I did: "Second, saying that God is uncreated because he is God is special pleading, and, as FSTDT correctly identifies in her (their?) post, ad hoc. If everything has a cause, then of course God should also have a cause; but you say no, and give no proper reason for why God is uncaused." That's how I backed it up, and I think it's valid. If you disagree, then tell me why rather than simply stating 'you did not back it up.'

You're confusing net sin with sin per capita. You misread Step 1 and Step 4 of the proof.

You fail to see that net 'sin' is related to 'sin' per capita. The more 'sin' in the world, the more 'sinners' we have. Or do you honestly think that the Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by a single 'sinner'? That the guilt of the entire Holocaust is Hitler's? There were many thousands of people involved in both of these, and in all the other atrocities I listed, so I don't get how you can say that fewer people 'sin.' There might not be child sacrifices going on, but way worse things than any of the authors of the Bible could imagine are continually happening all around the globe, and it's the work of men rather than Satan. Even if we accept your conclusion that net 'sin' is separate from 'sin' per capita, you have done nothing to prove that the trend is decreasing. All you cited was a single graph, and that is hardly enough. This is a bare-boned assertion, and you cannot back it up at all.

You can see how dead your conscience is, because you are defending child sacrifices of those nations that now cease to exist for their evil ways.

I am going to defend human sacrifice among the Aztecs and the Mayans and all Mesoamerican peoples from all manners of pompous western-cetrics, be they religious or secular. There was nothing evil about these civilizations.

You can't prove it here or anywhere. Talk to scientists, they will help you out to get your thinking straight.

Since you are the one who said that everything in nature has a cause, please show me how come parts of quantum mechanics do not destroy popular conceptions of causality (such as yours).

It doesn't stand to reason if everything has a cause that God should have a cause because God is not nature. You got confused before thinking God is nature.

This is ad hoc -- you can't show why God is not a part of nature, and you just say so in order to get away with your nonsense. Like FSTDT pointed out, you say everything has a cause, but God doesn't, because, you know, he's God.

Since Jesus said He is God the Creator, the minimum standard of comparison would be for another person on earth claiming He is the Creator. Do you have any challengers?

Yeah. Me. "I am the uncreated Creator."

But I am trying to show you as much mercy as I can, but when it gets inordinately egregious, I will have no choice to add on infractions, because repeating myself and your not responding to that evidence supplied, shows your disingenuousness.

I have told you, multiple times, why you are wrong. And yet you keep on saying that I don't back up my reasoning.

Churchwork

07-11-2008, 03:20 PM

Christians don't say God is uncreated because he is God. We say He is uncreated because the uncreated is proven to exist and because none can compare to Jesus.

By nature means the material universe. Nothing in the material universe happens all by itself or can cause itself. It always has a cause. God is not in the material universe, for He is never represented as such, so He qualifies as the necessary uncaused cause.

It does follow that the uncreated Creator would be unique in the claim of being uncreated for there is only one uncreated Creator; hence, none can compare to Christ.

You don't understand sin per capita. Sin per capita is saying there is 100 people taking a test and 3 people were cheating. Next year there is 200 people taking the test and 5 people cheated on the test. The latter is still better than the former on a per capita basis.

Per capita, child sacrifices are down. Per capita, women can vote more. Per capita, crime rate is down. And the list goes on and on.

You're a bad guy because you admit about yourself: "I am going to defend human sacrifice".

The most popular Christian in the entire eastern culture history was Watchman Nee. He is not western. You might want to read him (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm) since you have angst against the west.

You said, "please show me how come parts of quantum mechanics do not destroy popular conceptions of causality (such as yours)." Because they agree with the law of cause and effect. It is really is an asinine thing to think something happened all by itself like puff the magic dragon. You can't really even have a conversation with such stiff-lipped people.

Who is behind the evil things? Satan. Who gives into them. Man.

It was already shown why God is not part of nature, for since nothing in nature happens all by itself, the cause must be uncreated. The Bible is showing you who the uncreated is: Father, Son, Spirit (Triune God) for none can compare to Christ, for only the uncreated can enter into creation and resurrect of His own volition by the Spirit. The natural realm can't do this itself.

You said you are the uncreated creator, then you should know what you were doing 350 years ago. What were you doing on the first Wednesday in the month of June back then? Funny. Do you see how absurd things get? Now you are claiming to be God. You will argue to the cows come home with such mindlessness. It only shows there are some folks who will never repent of their sins to come to the cross to receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior even though they have no reason to remain hostile to Him.

One more infraction, then you go into temporary moderation (http://biblocality.com/forums/misc.php?do=cfrules#reputation). Just trying to give you a heads up if you want to discuss without being in moderation.

Apoche

07-11-2008, 04:23 PM

One more infraction, then you go into temporary moderation (http://biblocality.com/forums/misc.php?do=cfrules#reputation). Just trying to give you a heads up if you want to discuss without being in moderation.

Would you please stop handing out these infractions? All you accomplish is stifling the debate, and it's annoying anyway.

Anyway.

Christians don't say God is uncreated because he is God. We say He is uncreated because the uncreated is proven to exist and because none can compare to Jesus.

So, in other words, you say God is uncreated because he is God. Before you send another of those silly infractions of yours, let's go through this once again. You state that God has the quality of being uncreated, and that in order to avoid an infinite regress, this means God is the creator of the world. I could just as well say "I believe in a floating, amorphous pile of citrus pie named Sauron that is uncreated, and that none can in any way compare to this entity, because it is very benevolent and wise and never does anything wrong." Does this mean Sauron is the cause of the universe? You would say no. Yet your argument in favour of God is of the same sort--you define 'being uncreated' as a part of God, and then you say that only that which is uncreated can be the cause of the universe.

It does follow that the uncreated Creator would be unique in the claim of being uncreated for there is only one uncreated Creator; hence, none can compare to Christ.

Anyone can claim to be uncreated. The only evidence you have that Jesus was uncreated is his own word for it--and using Jesus' words to prove that Jesus is uncreated is not even circular, it's just inane and stupid.

Per capita, child sacrifices are down. Per capita, women can vote more. Per capita, crime rate is down. And the list goes on and on.

Isn't this an example of lying with statistics? Even though the percentage of cheaters goes down, the amount of cheaters is on the rise. The problem has not been dealt with, and the net 'sin' is actually increasing. Why would God employ such a dishonest means of measuring 'sin' as this 'sin' per capita concept?

You're a bad guy because you admit about yourself: "I am going to defend human sacrifice".

I am not a bad guy, that's just your subjective opinion. I said I defend the people who sacrificed children who operated within their own moral framework from those who accuse them of being evil.

The most popular Christian in the entire eastern culture history was Watchman Nee. He is not western. You might want to read him (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm) since you have angst against the west.

I have no 'angst' against the west. I am a proud westerner, and nothing is going to change that. I won't read Watchman Nee's book, since it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

It is really is an asinine thing to think something happened all by itself like puff the magic dragon. You can't really even have a conversation with such stiff-lipped people.

This is an asinine thing to say. We're having an actual debate, and we express different opinions. Every single person who has challenged you has told you that quantum mechanics refute your view of causality, and yet you merely hand-wave it away, saying "no it doesn't." How about you give yourself an infraction for mindless and boring repetition? Please provide some evidence. Tell me why quantum mechanics do not refute your view of causality, and if you convince me, then I'll admit I was wrong. Until then, I won't change my mind regarding this issue.

It was already shown why God is not part of nature, for since nothing in nature happens all by itself, the cause must be uncreated.

This is nonsense. Your argument goes like this:

A: Nature is created.
B: That which created it has to be uncreated.
C: God is uncreated because he said so.
D: God is the creator of nature.

You said you are the uncreated creator, then you should know what you were doing 350 years ago.

My point was that anyone can say "I am the uncreated creator!"

Churchwork

07-11-2008, 09:53 PM

The infractions are for the purpose of preventing you from stifling the discussion because it gets boring when you just self-declare yourself or repeat yourself mindlessly and misread so profusely after the answer was already given.

This is a clear violation of Board Etiquette #6 (which now you go into moderation temporarily with infractions at 15 points or higher), for you are not to repeat yourself mindlessly after it was already show otherwise. You said, "So, in other words, you say God is uncreated because he is God". No! Never said that. God is uncreated because nothing in nature happens all by itself, so the only possibility is there is an uncreated Creator who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. It's really not that hard to understand.

I am giving you an infraction for calling infractions silly which is not in keeping with BE #3. It is silly to overlook the consequences of your actions.

Jesus' own words He is uncreated is not the evidence used in the Minimal Facts Approach for Jesus being uncreated. It is that which most scholars agree Paul was being genuine about in the earliest recorded Christian documents of Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15. And martyrs don't go to their death on what they believe to be a lie. Hallucinations can't explain their eyewitness accounts because group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology.

You keep arguing about things that are not the what is being applied in the proof, so that is why Step 3 of the proof indicates don't argue against a quality of God that is not His own, for you would be arguing against something else and makes this conversation pointless.

Sin per capita is valid, just as many statistics are kept on a per capita basis whether they go up, net wise or not. What matters is exponentially sin per capita is going down which disproves there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for you would still not be sinning by now.

You are still a bad guy for defending child sacrifices under any conditions. That's your sin nature speaking loud and clear; you want to remain in your sin nature, for you will not repent. Hell exists for your types.

That's funny that you said, you "have no 'angst' against the west" when previously you said, "pompous western-cetrics, be they religious or secular".

You have no interest in reading Christian writings because you don't care for the truth after it was shown you. You won't be saved then for God said if you don't search Him out with all your heart and soul, you won't find Him. That is a spiritual law. You can bank on it! You don't realize you are hear because you are trying to rationalize a lie. It is eating away at your conscience, because you don't listen to your own spirit of God-consciousness.

I would have liked to continue our discussion without you having to go into moderation, but you are hellbent on making the same mistakes which you get the infractions for. That is just plain old obstinacy and belligerency.

You can't just hand-wave quantum mechanics claims something happens all by itself without any substantial evidence, for there are trillions of things with causes and nothing we can find with certainty that is without a cause in nature. The odds are so stacked against you, that you have a better chance of winning the lottery. Remember, for you to make a bizarre claim as this, the burden of the proof is clearly on you, because it is way out of standard observation. Just because atheists self-declare something happens all by itself in the minute world of quantum mechanics does not make it true. It is also disingenuous to have no backing for such a claim in the most complex area of science as an appeal for puff the magic dragon. Really you should select something more common like the earth happened all by itself or raindrops fall all by themselves, but we both know they do have a cause.

This is a very very boring conversation and you are an extreme dullard. So the infractions also fulfill the role of encouraging you not to be so mindless as you experience temporary moderation that may turn into temporary ban then permanent ban and removal if you continue these mistakes. I wouldn't want you to waste your time or my time.

You're bearing false witness of the proof. Rather, it goes like this:
A. Nothing in nature happens all by itself since all the evidence points to causes in trillions of them.
B. Therefore, nature can't cause itself, because it being nature has a cause.
C. Nature can't cause itself then it must be caused by that which is uncaused since no other possibility is fathomed by anyone in the history of the human race.
D. God proves He is the One uncaused through Jesus Christ in multiple group attestation of His resurrection recorded in documents most scholars agree Paul was being genuine about and were early to the date of His death as current as anything in antiquity.
E. If no alternative explanation can be fathomed, then it is likely true. You would be a gambler if you did not give your life to Christ.
F. To date, nobody has been able to find an alternative explanation worth considering.

Actually the lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won the most court cases in a row which was 245 said the case for the death, deity and resurrection is the best case he has ever seen. We can be certain it is true then since nothing is more well proven.

It is only important that one say He is the creator if He is the Creator, but He still has to prove it and Jesus does in His Word.

Your comments are riff with bearing false witness, for I did say "in order to avoid an infinite regress, this means God is the creator of the world". We are not avoiding infinite regress, but showed why there is not an eternity of the past of cause and effects because of the exponential progression of conscience as you would not still be sinning by now. Hence, the only possibility is that the uncreated created.

Your Sauron example fails because it has no evidential backing, just your self-declaring it. That is the nature of Satan and his pawns to mindlessly self-declare. It's boring. Whereas Christianity has the multiple attestation in various group settings of Jesus' resurrected and most scholars agree Paul was being genuine in Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 testifying to this in his meeting with the Apostles.

Amen.

Taksuru

07-21-2008, 08:16 AM

This is my critique of your "4 Step Proof for God," and all my citations come from your article found at:

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

I see many people have already tried to refute your proof, and in my mind they have succeeded, but you keep ignoring what they have to say. That in mind, I do not have high hopes I will succeed, but as I am a warrior and not only a priest, I must give it a try. In my discussion I will use terms and concepts from philosophy (eastern, western, and my native Tinzirean), as well as science, anthropology, and common sense. Hopefully, you will decide to facilitate this discussion by refraining from sending constant and unecessary infractions. They only stifle debate and strangles critical thinking.

Just like Ah Puch, I shall format my rebuttal in a concise and organized way. There will be five parts to it: four parts in which I rebut the four stages of your proof, and a conclusion, in which I sum up why I think it is not a very good proof of the Christian God.

1. Step I

1.1. You sum up the first part of your proof as:

If there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have had an eternity to be perfected without sin, but since we still sin, we know there was not an eternity of the past of cause and effect.

1.1.1 It is not proven that perfection means there is no sin. Perfection is a bit of a slippery term, and it can really mean whatever you want. True, I admit, it could mean a world without any sin whatsoever. It could also mean a world with only sin and nothing but sin. Or it could mean a world in which all living things are instantly turned into ice cream. What I am trying to say with this is that it is not a fact that a sinless world is perfect. Now, since what a perfect world would be like is impossible to say (it is!), a number of conclusions can be drawn:
1.1.1.1 From this it follows that perhaps the world we live in right now is perfect. That would rebut your entire argument about global increase in conscience, whatever that is supposed to mean. I am not saying that we live in a perfect world, only that since it is so hard to pin down the meaning of the phrase 'perfect world,' it could just as well mean the current state of affairs.
1.1.1.2 Maybe sin is unrelated to perfection. Perhaps a perfect universe is merely very aesthetical, and maybe it doesn't matter in such a universe if people sin or not. Once again, I do not think it is this way, just that it might be so. I am trying to tell you that perfection is a very unclear term, and that it shouldn't be used lightly (or even be used at all!) within philosophical discourse.
1.1.1.3 Or perhaps sin is perfection, and only if we live in constant sin the world will be perfected. I am not arguing it's necessarily this way, just that it's a possibility, and we cannot know.
1.1.1.4 Summary: as long as there is no definition for what is perfect, the first part of your proof is defeated. And if you define 'perfection' as 'living in accordance with God' or something to that effect, you are defeating yourself, because then you presuppose God.
1.1.2. Another serious problem is that there is no definition of 'sin.' It is like the hollow terms 'good and evil,' to which westerners attach importance, and just like those terms, it is very easy to knock down. Various cultures have various conceptions of morality. Some of them believe, just like you do, in good and evil, but what is good to them might be evil to you, and what is good to you might be evil to them. For example, human sacrifice is evil to you, but to the ancient Aztecs, it was a good thing. Others believe that 'good' and 'evil' do not exist at all, replacing them with a different system of values. Tinzireans are sceptical towards the idea of 'good-evil;' we have our own moral compass instead, consisting of 'dishonourable' and 'honourable.' You can be honourable and still do things that westerners would regard as evil. Similarly, some acts that are good according to you westerners are seen as dishonourable to us. Sparing an enemy on the battlefield is ostensibly a 'good' thing to do, from the perspective of your culture. From the perspective of my culture, it is dishonourable, and therefore you should not do it.
1.1.2.1 Thereby, we can safely surmise that 'good' and 'evil' are relative terms (i.e. 'good' to one man is 'evil' to another).
1.1.2.2 The notion of sin is inexplicably tied to the notion of good and evil. It is evil to be sinful, right? If you do good deeds, you are not sinning.
1.1.2.3 Summary: the notion of sin is too whimsical to be a part of your argument, and since 'sin' is 'evil,' the nonexistence of 'evil' also disproves the existence of 'sin.' If you say there is a universal morality, the burden of proof shifts to you, and you better do a good job explaining why you think it exists.
1.2 I will hereby only answer some specific points that I think are erroneous in your Step 1.
1.2.1. You wrote:

For example, it is no longer common practice, except in Islam, to sacrifice their own children (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2044) on altars to their god or gods.

Child sacrifices have no part in Islamic theology.
1.2.2. You wrote:

Just these past two centuries we see slavery (http://biblocality.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3909&postcount=3) is no longer ever permitted, but in ancient times it was deemed manageable for the period due to economic challenges in organizing human affairs.

Once again, slavery is not evil or good, since neither of those two actually exists. Tinzireans certainly consider slavery to be honourable, and we still practice it in various forms, though it might not always be legal. So if slavery is a good thing for us--and it was a good thing for the Romans, for the Islamic world in the middle ages, for the Israelites, for the Aztecs, for the Incas, for the Chinese, and for thousands of other civilization--then how come it no longer existing is seen as an improvement? Certainly, the lack of slavery ought to be seen as a catastrophe, as something bad that has befallen humanity.

1.2.2.1 Tinzireans consider human sacrifice honourable. It is a good way to honour the gods, nothing more. Many other cultures consider and have considered human sacrifice to be good. The Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incas spring to mind, but they are only the three most well-known. Vikings as well as Romans also engaged in such rituals. To us, the lack of human sacrifice is sinful. You might think that it is sinful to sacrifice; we think it is sinful to not sacrifice.

Conclusion: Until you can show me beyond doubt that sin exists, and that a perfect world is a sinless world, I can safely ignore this part of your argument. Furthermore, it is not really relevant to your proof.

2. Step II

2.1. You sum up the second part of your proof as:

Nothing in nature or time happens all by itself. It always has a cause. Therefore, since nature must always have a cause, the only possibility that exists is the uncreated created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ (you are welcome to compare Jesus to any figure).

To put it simply you are saying: "everything has a cause except for God, and therefore God is actually the cause of everything." There are quite a few fallacies and errors in this.
2.1.1. That nothing in nature happens by itself is wrong. I do believe that causality exists, or at least for macroscopic events, but it is quite easy to formulate a philosophical system that does not involve any causality.
2.1.1.1 For example, imagine a universe in which the Many-World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is absolutely true. The moment you drop a rock in this hypothetical universe, an infinite amount of different things happen to that rock. Each of these 'things' that happen to the rock are referred to, for brevity's sake, as 'paths.' So when you drop a rock, there are an infinite amount of paths, and all of them happen at the same time. One path would involve the rock turning into a sheep, in another part the rock flies away into outer space, and in a third part it explodes, and so on, ad infinitum. Think of the universe as a tree with an infinite number of branches splitting of from the point in time where you drop the rock. Each of these branches represents a potential path. In other words, by dropping a rock, or by doing anything whatsoever, you are generating an infinite number of additional universes. Now, of course the person dropping the rock is also split up into an infinite number of himself. From the point of view of each copy of the rock-dropper, what happens to the rock seems to be causally related to him letting it go. For example, the copy of the rock-dropper in the universe in which the rock became a sheep would say that there is a causal link between him dropping the rock and it turning into a sheep. Ergo, you'd have an illusion of causality.
2.1.1.1.1 Attn: I am not arguing that the universe works that way, only that we could live in a universe in which causality is merely an illusion and does not exist. You have to show why causality must be real in order for part two of your proof to have any potency. As long as the possibility that causality is just an illusion exists, part two of your proof has no power.
2.2 That said, you do not manage to prove that God is the cause of the universe. You say that everything has a cause, but then you add that God does not, as an exception. In other words--"everything happens because of some antecedent, but God doesn't." That's an example of the ad hoc fallacy. Read this: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Ad%20Hoc%20Rescue. It gives some more information about what ad hoc entails and why we ought to avoid it.
2.2.1. In other words, since it is ad hoc to say that God is the only thing that is uncaused, part II of your perfect proof falls apart. You offer no evidence whatsoever for why God is uncreated and uncaused, i.e. while perhaps he is the one who started the universe, you have not in any way demonstrated that he is causeless. Saying "none can compare to Christ" will not get you out of this dilemma, because whether other people can compare to Christ or not is irrelevant: you still haven't demonstrated that God is causeless. You then go on to state (in part III of your proof):

God is, by the definition of the word, Uncreated

This is circular--"God is uncreated because he is God"--and it does not save your proof. You have no evidence that the term "God of the Bible" entails "being uncreated" outside of the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the God of the Bible will not get you very far in any debate. To recapitulate, since you seem to have some difficulties following logical lines of thought, what I am saying is that the fact that the Bible calls God uncreated does not make him uncreated.

Conclusion: You need to demonstrate, independent of the Bible, why God is uncreated. You also need to prove that causality exists. As I said above, it is easy to envision a world in which causality doesn't apply. Our universe could be a universe in which causality is a mere illusion, and unless you offer proof to the contrary, I can safely ignore this part of your argument.

3. Step III

3.1 I have nothing to say about this--it is irrelevant.

4. Step IV

4.1 I have nothing to say about this--it is irrelevant.

Conclusion

Your proof of God really consists of two parts: one part trying to show that an "eternity of past cause and effect would result in a sinless world," and one part in which you attempt to prove that nothing in the universe is causeless except for God, and that God by definition is causeless. Both I have demonstrated to be quite wrong and off track.

Churchwork

07-21-2008, 12:09 PM

What stifles the discussion is mindless repetition instead of responding the burden of the proof that is on you, so infractions are necessary to help you change your behavior, because this is not a forum for belligerency as was exhibited by Ah Puch whom you mentioned. Let's see if you could disprove the proof, or if you are just repeating what others already said and proven wrong.

1.1.1 The exponential progression of conscience we observe tells us there will be no more sin and thus the perfection that we are moving towards. Hence, there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, otherwise we would not still be sinning by now.
1.1.1.1 Since you overlooked the exponential progression of conscience in, your point made in 1.1.1.1 is invalid.
1.1.1.2 Ditto.
1.1.1.3 Ditto.
1.1.1.4 Ditto; and God is not first assumed as you mistakenly thought.
1.1.2 You have no moral compass. If you go to the dictionary you will find a definition of "sin" without the mention of a specific culture or a God, so for our purposes of the proof is adequate enough to simply say sin exists, otherwise we would not throw people in jail. It is not justified today if some nations kill their children as sacrifices and that is acceptable; it is simply wrong, otherwise you condone such activity and that makes you sick-minded.
1.1.2.1 Since God of the Bible is proven by the uncreated Creator must exist and Jesus is God because He proved it by His resurrection, we know it is true there is singular truth which is God's truth in all things being summed up in Christ. Just because one society thinks something is not sinful, doesn't mean it is not, but we do know there are universal truths as all nations put their criminals in jail.
1.1.2.2 You could even be sinning by doing good deeds, because those deeds were not authorized by God, but are authored by your flesh in the "good self". In other words, though it was a good deed by the world's standards, God did not want you to do it, for He wanted you to do something else. God is concerned with whether it originated from Him and you follow His good will.
1.1.2.3 Since evil exists, e.g. taking down the twin towers, then sin exists. The burden of the proof remains you to say sin does no exist, for it is in the dictionary as existing without even mention of God. Sin exists, for we would not put people in jail. You don't like that sin exists so you can sin since you might want to do something that is sinful, but if you claim it is not sin you think you can escape its penalty.
1.2 You have free-choice.
1.2.1 Whether you say child sacrifices and human sacrifices are not part of one's faith in Islam is irrelevant, since it is observed in practice by suicide mass-murderers, then it is part of their Koran. Though these appear to be voluntary, it is almost as if they have been tricked into doing it, like a child thrown into the fiery mouth of Molech.
1.2.2 The kind of slavery before was unlike the slavery that one would try for today. Slavery in ancient times was just the lower class of people. Today, slavery is racism against blacks or others in our history. You're a bad guy that you would still support this. This is evil. It is a sin. It is universally unacceptable. You'll go to jail if you try to do this. You're a bad guy. Since sin exists as was shown and you could not show otherwise, and because it is vital to Step 1, then Step 1 stands and remains unchallenged.
2.1 You misread Step 2. It doesn't say everything has a cause except God, therefore God is the cause of everything. Rather, it says everything we observe has a cause in nature, therefore nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself then the only known possibility is it was caused by the uncaused Creator, logically speaking.
2.1.1 Bottom line you have no evidence for something happening all by itself like puff the magic dragon.
2.1.1.1 We are not concerned with fantasies, only that which which is evidenced. Since there are trillions of things with causes and we can't find anything that is without a cause, then the universe can't cause itself. Complex causation is still causation.
2.1.1.1. There is no possibility for us to think causality is an illusion.
2.2 You are misrepresenting Step 2 of the proof by saying God is the exception. Not at all. Rather, He is the product of the evidence. That's why Step 3 is introduced because you are arguing against a quality that is not God of the Bible. It does not say He is an exception. Try to stay on topic. Rather, because the everything in nature has a cause, nature can't cause itself; ergo, the uncreated Creator is the cause as the only viably known possibility.
2.2.1 Since God remains causeless, then compare Jesus to any who said they were God when they walked the earth. God by definition being uncreated is not the proof for God being uncreated; it is just the quality of God in Step 3 we are talking about and deciding if it is true or not. The proof is that nothing in nature happens all by itself, so the uncreated Creator must exist. That God is uncreated does not depend on false views that have no support outside the Bible. The Bible saying God is uncreated is not the proof God is uncreated. The proof God is uncreated is because nothing in nature happens all by itself. Jesus is God because of His resurrection. Most skeptical scholars use Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 to say Paul was being genuine in which he said he met with the Apostles and they agreed on their multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings seeing, talking, walking, eating with and touching Jesus in His resurrected body. Notice we are proving Jesus is God and God is uncreated by the testimony of the non-believing scholars, because they do not know how to explain this away that which they admit Paul was being authentic.
3.1 As we have seen, Step 3 is vital, because it makes no sense for you to argue against a quality of God's that is not His. You would then be arguing against something else and be off topic.
4.1 Step 4 remains important because some try to contend, why can't there be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural (if not the natural). The exponential progression of conscience disallows this.
Conclusion: God is not in the universe. He is the Creator outside the universe. Nothing you said was not already presented before in this thread. Boring repetition and infraction. Obviously, you can't do anything but repeat what was already in this thread. The burden of the proof is on you to do more than that.

Taksuru

07-21-2008, 01:31 PM

1.1.1 The exponential progression of conscience we observe tells us there will be no more sin and thus the perfection that we are moving towards. Hence, there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, otherwise we would not still be sinning by now.

As I pointed out--and you ignored, I may add--the notion of sin is not, in any way, universal. It is precisely because it is not universal that you cannot say there is an exponential progression of conscience. A hundred years ago, mistreating a person of African or Native American descent would not be 'sinful,' but today it would be. So, from the point of view of someone living a hundred years ago, concepts such as racial equality imply a decrease in conscience. Do you see my point? Morality is largely relative, and for that reason, it is wrong to say that we are becoming more and more moral. Cannibalism, for example, is regarded as bad and evil by many westerners, whereas there's quite a few tribes of Papua New Guinea that'd beg to differ. Who is to say who's right? The westerners, or the Papuans? Is cannibalism right or wrong? It is impossible to say, for ideas such as 'right' or 'wrong' depend on your cultural background. When you say that the world is becoming less sinful, some other person from some other culture would disagree and say it's becoming more sinful.

That said, you missed my point--I said that perfection does not imply lack of sin.

1.1.1.1 Since you overlooked the exponential progression of conscience in, your point made in 1.1.1.1 is invalid.

Since you cannot understand moral relativism, your critique of 1.1.1.1 is as dead wrong as your critique of 1.1.1.

1.1.1.2 Ditto.
1.1.1.3 Ditto.
1.1.1.4 Ditto; and God is not first assumed as you mistakenly thought.
My answer to this inanity is really the same: ditto, ditto, ditto. And I do not claim you presuppose God. I said that if you define 'perfection' as living in accordance with God's laws, then you are presupposing God. Big difference.

1.1.2 You have no moral compass. If you go to the dictionary you will find a definition of "sin" without the mention of a specific culture or a God,

Dictionary definitions don't interest me. Encyclopedias contain more valid information about religious concepts. Here's Wikipedia's treatment of sin: "Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. Commonly, the moral code of conduct is decreed by a divine entity (such as Yahweh or Allah in the Abrahamic religions)." The article goes on to mention that the related secular concepts are 'justice' and 'crime.' At any rate, you will have to admit that sin does carry a religious load. What more, 'sin' is any evil action, right? As I said, evil is not itself a universal concept, so why should sin be?

so for our purposes of the proof is adequate enough to simply say sin exists, otherwise we would not throw people in jail.

No, the reason why some societies throw people into jail are juridical and not based on morals. For sure, the juridical system can be informed by morality, but they are really separate. I could envision a society in which people are thrown into jail for doing what you'd call good. But I digress--even if criminals were incarcerated for doing 'evil' acts, you still have to tackle the problem that evil is relative to culture. Culture A might throw criminals in jail for eating fish, whereas culture B throws criminals in jail for not saluting the flag. Culture A does not imprison people for refusing to salute, and culture B does not sentence people to prison for eating fish. Do you see what I am hinting at? What is good and what is bad, or criminal and law-abiding, largely depends on culture rather than anything else.

Just because one society thinks something is not sinful, doesn't mean it is not, but we do know there are universal truths as all nations put their criminals in jail.

No, we do not know there is a universal moral truth. Not all societies do incarcerate their criminals. All societies punish them--but that has nothing to do with the fact that morality is relative. It has to do with the fact that all societies punish those who go against the norms of that society.

1.1.2.3 Since evil exists, e.g. taking down the twin towers, then sin exists.

I have said that evil does not exist. And the terrorists who took down Twin Towers thought they were doing the right thing. You might call 9/11 evil; Al-Qaida calls it good.

Sin exists, for we would not put people in jail.

The reasons for putting people in jail are practical. We can't have child rapists and murderers running around in the street--society would be ruined. For that reason, we lock them away. The juridical system attempts to enable society to work properly and is, philosophically speaking, not really related to the morals of the society. Often morals and law coincide, but they are not the same. It goes against the culture of many Americans to allow homosexuality to exist, and yet it does, and it is not illegal. In other words, gay people can live the life they want and have that right by law, even if the culture they live in disapprove of it. Law is not the same thing as morality; law is a way of making civilization run smoothly, not a way to enforce moral values.

You don't like that sin exists so you can sin since you might want to do something that is sinful, but if you claim it is not sin you think you can escape its penalty.

I believe in honourable and dishonourable actions. Tinzireans do not, I can ensure you, believe in sin. We have our own moral compass to tell us what is right and wrong, and it is not based on the notions of 'sin' or 'not sin.' It is based on the notions of honour and dishonour.

Whether you say child sacrifices and human sacrifices are not part of one's faith in Islam is irrelevant, since it is observed in practice by suicide mass-murderers, then it is part of their Koran.

They are martyrs, just like your cherished Christian martyrs. Paul died in the name of his religion, and so does countless of Islamic suicide bombers; sacrifice has no part in it. My great-uncle, sranen Rashameni Raichiku, died defending a temple from invaders. That was not a sacrifice, that was martyrdom. He slaid several of the foul dogs trying to profane the temple with his sword, even as they threw spears and fired arrows at him, even as his flesh was torn by their weapons. Similarly, the 9/11 terrorists died for their belief, as martyrs and heroes, not as sacrifices.

The kind of slavery before was unlike the slavery that one would try for today. Slavery in ancient times was just the lower class of people. Today, slavery is racism against blacks or others in our history.

Slaves are merely unpaid workers that you possess. You do not possess a paid worker; a slave, however, is your possession by law. Racism is not a part of the definition of slavery.

You're a bad guy that you would still support this.

I do not support racism against anyone, certainly not people of African descent, as I have dark skin myself.

You're a bad guy. Since sin exists as was shown and you could not show otherwise, and because it is vital to Step 1, then Step 1 stands and remains unchallenged.

I beg to differ. I have already told you about moral relativism.

2.1 You misread Step 2. It doesn't say everything has a cause except God, therefore God is the cause of everything. Rather, it says everything we observe has a cause in nature, therefore nature can't cause itself. If nature can't cause itself then the only known possibility is it was caused by the uncaused Creator, logically speaking.

I did not misread it. It is a correct assesment. You say that God is that cherished uncaused Creator of yours by virtue of him being God. You say that 'being uncreated' is a part of the definition of God. Think of your step II as consisting of three parts:

i. Everything has a cause except for the primordial cause, the Creator.
ii. The Creator is Uncreated.
iii. God is, by definition, not created.
iv. For that reason, God is the creator of the Universe.

Do you see where it goes wrong? Well, first off, just because you say that God is uncreated, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is. You have to prove that God is not created, otherwise you are the one who is all the time repeating yourself without ever thinking. Second, even if you proved beyond doubt that God was uncreated, it does not follow he was the cause of the universe.

2.1.1 Bottom line you have no evidence for something happening all by itself like puff the magic dragon.

I need no evidence. The burden of proof is on you. I said that "it is very easy to set up a philosophical system which does not make room for causality." You have to show me why causality by necessity has to exist. My example was meant as a pointer, to show how a universe unconcerned with causality could work. Notice that, in my example, the illusion of cause and effect still remains, even if causality does not exist. Get the hint? No? Then let me tell you--maybe all those trillion examples of causes and effects you mention are illusions. As long as you do not prove that causality itself exists and is a valid concept, I do not need to take any of your first-case arguments seriously.

2.1.1.1 We are not concerned with fantasies, only that which which is evidenced. Since there are trillions of things with causes and we can't find anything that is without a cause, then the universe can't cause itself. Complex causation is still causation.

I clearly demonstrated that a universe in which causality does not exist is a possibility. As long as this possibility remains, it doesn't make a lick of difference if you say there are trillions of things with causes--you have to show me (and prove to me) that causality by necessity must exist.

2.1.1.1. There is no possibility for us to think causality is an illusion.

Okay, one more time, then:

i. Imagine a universe which branches off into an infinite number of paths every time something happens. Every time you drop a rock, that universe branches off into an infinite number of 'paths' or 'parallel timelines' or what have you, in which an infinite number of possible things happen after the rock is dropped.
ii. In some paths, the rock hangs in the air. In others, it flies away. In others, it doesn't fall, but the ground you're standing on moves up to meet it.
iii. To put it simply: what happens when you drop the rock is truly random.
iv. However, since the event that follows the rock-dropping occurs after you've let go of the rock, you will think that letting go of the rock caused that specific event to occur.
v. So if the rock turns into a hen in one timeline when you drop it, you will think there is a causal connection between dropping the rock and it becoming a hen.

Ergo, an illusion of causality.

2.2 You are misrepresenting Step 2 of the proof by saying God is the exception.

He is, by your own admission, an exception. God is the exception to the rule 'everything in nature has a cause.'

The proof God is uncreated is because nothing in nature happens all by itself.

This is bizarre and illogical. Let us divide it up into two steps.

i. Nothing in nature happens all by itself.
ii. Therefore, God happens all by himself.

Do you, as I do, see the lack of logic?

Churchwork

07-21-2008, 03:09 PM

As was said already, sin is universal, for all nations put people in jail. Some may differ on what is sin, but everyone accepts there is sin. It was sinful to mistreat native Americans and Africans then as it is now. Just because an evil nation takes upon itself evil practices, doesn't make it right. Just because some nations differ on some things, doesn't make it so there is no morality whatsoever against sin. So there is still an exponential progression of conscience. While you see our future possibly increasing in cannibalism, there is no actual evidence for this as being a better state or even increasing. Killing people and eating them is just wrong. Your conscience is so dead it can't recognize this. Mankind is moving away from such things. Perfection is by definition without sin. Anything you do in life stained with sin shows you are not yet perfected. The definition of sin we are using as was already said is that of not presuming a God first. This is stated in the 4 Step Proof for God already. If sin is not a universal concept then people who murder in any society should not be put in jail. By these actions it is accepted there is evil, whether you want to admit it or not. We see such evil in men's actions as well the response to those actions against such evil. The only reason you want to discount evil is because you like to commit evil and want to pretend there is no consequence for your sin. Laws are based on morals, relative or not. All societies punish murderers, so there is a morality there happening. Who can deny it? It is not just that murder is against the norms of the society but that it is punished because it is a universally accepted evil sin. It is the norm of society to punish murder because it is a sin. It is accepted what the Muslims did was wrong in mass murdering thousands of people in the Twin Towers. While you think this might be a good thing, it only shows how sick your heart is. You have no moral compass. You're a bad guy.

Even you with your dead conscience consider murder and rape to be wrong. If it is not wrong then there is no such thing as sin, so you are admitting sin exists under your breath. Such laws in place reflect the morality of a society, and these are universal morals, for there is no society that condones such things, even if it is practiced in secret. That's why they can never admit openly this is just behavior. It is dishonorable to commit sin. When you murder someone, even you admit it is dishonorable, not for no reason at all, but down inside you know it is a sin.

Christians do not blow themselves up when we are martyred. We are martyred by people who are hostile to Christ taking action against us. The difference is Christians have the multiple eyewitness testimony of God on earth being resurrected. Whereas other religions die for something they can't prove.

Slavery was due to racism against the blacks. Nobody denies it. You said you support slavery as possibly acceptable. Yet it is founded on racism. So you contradict yourself. Again, it is just your dead conscious speaking forth.

This is why I am giving you another infraction. I said we know the uncreated Creator exists because nothing in nature happens all by itself; ergo, there is only one available know possibility, there must be an uncaused cause the uncreated Creator. But you repeated yet again that I said God exists because God is uncreated. No. That is not the approach I am using at all. Christians don't use that approach. When you repeat your error instead of responding to what I said, with the burden of the proof on you, this is what gets you infractions for your belligerency and obstinacy.

Since an uncreated Creator exists, we need to find out who He is. He is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ and He is fully proven by His resurrection. Since there is no basis for wild assumptions like cause and effect are illusions, therein lies your problem you admit you don't need to operate based on the evidence. But Christians and scientists do work by the evidence, which says there are trillions of things with cause and effects, and you could not find anything to support your idea of illusions or that there could be something in nature without a cause. Hence, it is fully proven causation exists, because nothing happens all by itself. That's the only reason you need to accept the truth. Your fantasy illustrations don't count, because you have nothing to support such whimsical ideas: you said "imagine this..."

God is not the exception because we don't make any claim about a God prior to observing nature. It is in the observation of nature that we then come to the realization that there is an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is what we call God who created the universe. There is no other name one is called the uncaused cause than God; that's what we mean when we say God. He is the intelligent designer.

God does not happen all by himself. He always existed. There is a difference. The latter is reality, the former is twisted thought. If you always existed then you don't "happen".

kwikee

07-11-2009, 09:53 AM

Hi,

Your argument is interesting but I wouldn't say it's nearly perfect. I'm fairly sure I have the actual Perfect Proof but with very different results than what you had. I should point out, that I've never heard this evidence anywhere else, and I don't believe it is addressed in any holy book. It requires no intuition, no leaps of faith, no science, no double-standards. I feel it is a relatively simple argument.

I sort of agree that people who call themselves agnostics are usually not all that different than athiests. Where athiests try to use what we know from Science to make conclusions, I find what we don't know yet and what Science or Religion may never explain is far more indicative of the Truth. I am definitely an agnostic and not an atheist, and I have a solid foundation for it.

Before I begin though I have three things to point out;
1. My view is not that God doesn't exist, but that God did not write any holy books, so while it may seem vague at first, the application and conclusion will come in the latter half. I call it Practical Agnosticism. :)

2. While I may not touch upon a few of your steps with great detail, my evidence will invalidate them anyway. I feel that rather than trying to deconstruct your view, it's more effective to just go ahead and present my own for the most part. It works on a bit of a higher plain than your proof anyway.

3. My background is Islam (I left a few years ago), not Christianity. It simply means I am comfortable speaking of Islamic beliefs so I may bring them up for comparison.

A minor thing I want to mention is that in your "perfect proof" you state that Islam teaches its followers to sacrifice their children as "suicide mass-murderers." This is not something that is taught in Islam, so these are not real muslims. You say the people leading the Crusades and Inquisition were not real Christians but the suicide bombers are real Muslims. Please correct this error.

---

As for your four-step proof, here's a basic outline of how I will treat them:

Step 1: I'm not going to touch upon the age of the Earth or mankind. I have no reason to contest it. I don't understand why sinning was mentioned before the Bible was in your argument, but it doesn't matter. Sin is a Biblical concept, it's not something that can be easily factored into proof before proving its merit. But regardless of how old the universe is according to however many people, my evidence does not change. This isn't "dancing around it", it's not seeing the significance of this step.

Step 2: I will not contest that everything in the universe has a cause and/or is created. I won't contest that God the creator is Himself uncreated. There is no need for me to. I don't see where the conclusion that Christ has to be that God came from though, as far as I could see it was arbitrary.

Step 3: This one is important. While I find it is unnecessary to argue against your first two steps, the biggest flaw in all pro-religious arguments is that the author attempts to link God to their holy book. God did not write the Bible or the Qur'an or Torah and this is the basis of my argument. But for the sake of making things simpler, I will agree to the following traits of God:
- God is all powerful
- God is all knowing
- God might be infinitely merciful and loving (but since this seems to be such a controversial subject and one that may conflict with my evidence, I won't make it mandatory)

I see no reason to believe or abide by the idea of God being a Trinity or Jesus having anything to do with anything -- these are aspects specific to the Bible and therefore should only be accounted for AFTER the Bible has been proven true.

Step 4: It sounds to me like this step is addressing whether God or a creation of God created us. There's also mention that there can't be a cycle of gods creating gods, I believe. Yes, this doesn't stop God from being the source and one uncreated Creator. But I'm having just a bit of trouble understanding this part... It doesn't matter anyway.

I'll revisit these "proofs" after presenting my own.

---

Onto the proof!

Phase 1: Proving Agnosticism
a) To start there are three quotes that state easily-provable facts:

"The only thing I know is that I know nothing." - Socrates

"There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, through his character Sherlock Holmes

Socrates' statement is the ultimate statement of modesty, demonstrating that he understands Shakespeare's statement; that there will always be so much more out there we don't know than what they do. Bizarre, wonderful, terrifying things -- did you know there's a squid bigger than the giant squid that can change colours instantaniously and has hooks instead of suckers along its enormous tentacles? Or a lizard that shoots blood from its eyeballs to scare predators off? Sorry for the tangent, but that's awesome. Doyle states that we should learn to accept things that seem otherwise ridiculous when all other possibilities have been exhausted completely.

b) Religious arguments generally assume that there are two things of significance in the universe. God and Man. If God can be proven, according to these views, than one's holy book is by proxy, true. As I said, I won't contest that God exists, is uncreated and is omnipotent. The problem is the assumption that if God created us, or created whatever created us, then God wrote the Bible.

But there's a problem with that. It's too much of an assumption. Socrates states that he knows nothing because he is aware that when speaking of any soft of Metaphysical aspect of the universe, there's so much we can't see. It's very wise and modest. Now, as Shakespeare said, there's more to the universe than we can ever dream of. By this point you're probably thinking I'm going to bring up aliens now... yeah, I kind of have to. There's no reason they can't exist, Doyle said so too! But it's not just aliens, so don't worry. The Bible and Qur'an give us fantastic examples of things that could be out there; the angels, devils, Satan, jinn, I recall a demonic whore being mentioned and something called an anti-christ (It's in Islam too, actually). So even without aliens, the Bible presents the possibility of creatures that cannot be accounted for, creating an absolutely unfixable problem. You mentioned in your proofs that people have argued that aliens created us and God created them, but that isn't my argument. God created us, sure, but who is to say He wrote or inspired the Bible as well? There is infinite possibility out there about who wrote the Bible, if not God than something masquerading as God. This would mean the chance of God writing/inspiring the Bible is one in infinity, ie. practically zero. This cannot be disproven because there is too much about the universe that we do not know, and we can't eliminate them no matter how improbable they are.

It is pretty clear now that an Agnostic view towards religion is the only modest and reasonable view to take. How can infinite possibility be countered? Now I can take it one step further.

Phase 2: Application of Agnostic Evidence

It is possible to say one can rely on faith or intuition or God's holy traits to identify the true author (let's just call God the author instead of being technical with inspiration) of the Bible, but it isn't possible. The Bible and you claim that people can use their logic and intellect to choose the path of Truth, ie. that the identity of the author is provable. But my evidence demonstrates that it is not provable, there is no way to eliminate the potentially infinite beings and things in the universe. You could claim that only God could have written the Bible because of its contents but I do believe Christians believe Satan authored the Qur'an and both books sound very similar. But why would I have such high standards? There could be no higher stakes, we're talking about lives and souls, eternal or otherwise! If I devoted myself to an invisible being who claims I owe them my existance, I want to be 100% sure they are who they claim to be. Clearly it is impossible to be certain.

This, as I said earlier, is an unsolvable problem, and it's about to get worse. Simply put, the previous claim is an error, a mistake, so I evidently just outsmarted 'God'. But as I said earlier, I agree that God is omnipotent, all-knowing and generally perfect, so God is infinitely smarter than me -- I know nothing. So if God does not make mistakes and the Bible has this mistake, the Bible could not be authored by God. There is one possibility that God did in fact author the Bible or Qur'an, etc. and that would be that God is lying in them, since they can't be the Truth. If they were the Truth there would be a paradox, God making the mistake of saying we can be certain when God cannot make mistakes -- it can be eliminated because it is impossible.

It can be said that God wouldn't allow such a book if it weren't the truth. But there's a book there claiming it, and another and another. It can be said that the traits of God can prove that these books are true (your mention of Jesus' proof of resurrection comes to mind), but we get these traits from the very book in question, we can't take its worth for truth.

To accept the Bible is to ignore our understanding of the universe and ourselves, specifically that we don't know anything about the universe. But the Bible tells us to use our minds and intellects, does it not? So it's telling us to do something that would prove it wrong. Is there sin in my argument? I used my logic and reasoning, as the Bible told me to, but I didn't end up a Christian. How could I go to Hell for spotting this unfixable error? This only further adds to the paradox.

With this problem before us, scientific evidence or ontological arguments or a hybrid such as your proofs all become red herrings. The Bible dooms itself by claiming to be authored by a perfect being. There is no paradox if the Bible is lying. Why would a real God make this all so complicated anyway? Though I didn't mention it before, I think Occam's Razor applies very well to this situation.
Phase 3: Back to the Perfect Proofs

Step 1: Since the Bible cannot be true, the concept of Sin is irrelevant. Sin is something mentioned in books such as the Bible which come from unknown sources, and therefore have no foundation for being believed. Crime is not Sin, and can therefore not be used to measure our modern level of Sin. It also cannot be used to measure the age of the Earth and therefore there is no basis to claiming the earth is 6000 years old. Step 1 is a red herring.

Step 2: God is God, nothing can happen without a cause. God has no cause. This is still all fine and dandy.

Step 3: The real God did not write the Bible and therefore the Bible is lying, or God is lying and the Bible does not contain the Truth. I've heard the argument that God wouldn't allow such things, but there are two pretty solid religions I can think of to prove that incorrect. I've heard that God created us in his image, but this information comes from the Bible, an untruthful source. God does not need to care about us because that isn't a requirement to be all powerful and uncreated. God does not need to send his Son because that is not a requirement to be all powerful and uncreated. God does not need to be a Trinity because that is once again not a requirement. God does not need to give us any sort of religion, God can simply be God yet people decieve themselves into believing that God must have these additional traits.

Jesus doesn't have to be God to be resurrected either, doesn't have to be God to have good conduct, and therefore is not without compare and is not perfect. Am I calling him a liar? If Jesus is the one who inspired the Bible, then yes. Is this a sin? The Bible says it is, but that's a lie.

Step 4: God could have created us, or created the thing that created us. But the Bible was not written by that same God since it contains at least one mistake. It is not necessary for supernatural beings to conform to your 6000-year rule. The Bible itself gives examples of these beings and once again creates a paradox for itself.

---

As far as I can see this is perfect proof against the Bible, I can find no flaw or solution to the problems I present. I look forward to your rebuttal.

- Azim Khan

Churchwork

07-11-2009, 09:48 PM

A minor thing I want to mention is that in your "perfect proof" you state that Islam teaches its followers to sacrifice their children as "suicide mass-murderers." This is not something that is taught in Islam, so these are not real muslims.
I believe they are the deeper Muslims based on text of the Koran (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2941&highlight=Muslim) and other important Muslim texts.

aliens now... yeah, I kind of have to. There's no reason they can't exist
They don't exist. There are over 800 factors we know of that require life to exist on another planet. When factored into all the planets in the universe, there is no chance of aliens.

God created us, sure, but who is to say He wrote or inspired the Bible as well?
By the proof of the resurrection which you can't explain away naturalistically.

Christians believe Satan authored the Qur'an and both books sound very similar.
Not at all. Jesus died on the cross in the Bible, and some guy in a cave all by himself six centuries later said He didn't. Historians examine primary sources.

these books are true (your mention of Jesus' proof of resurrection comes to mind), but we get these traits from the very book in question, we can't take its worth for truth.
We can take some things to be true because almost all skeptical scholars accept them (for good reason): 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) disciples believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically, 3) Paul was converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected, 4) James, half-brother of Jesus, was converted after believing he saw Jesus resurrected, 5) the tomb was empty. No naturalistic theory can account for all 5 facts.

Jesus said His resurrection would be the number one proof He is God. He said this is the sign of Jonah and He would raise His temple on the 3rd day.

no basis to claiming the earth is 6000 years old.
The Bible not does the 4 Step Proof claim this. The definition of sin being used is the dictionary definition without any mention of God.

Therefore, you have no grounding in agnosticism.

Adam

07-16-2009, 08:18 PM

Hi Troy, my name is Adam.

Having been raised and schooled in a Christian environment, the question of God's existence has always been of interest to me. In the interest of open dialogue I must admit that I am an agnostic, having never found the argument for believing satisfactory, although recently I have perceived that there is something eternal, unchanging and pervasive – an underlying cosmic order which is very beautiful. I have always been fond of talking about religion, though my friends (most of which are Christians of varying degrees) inevitably become uncomfortable when talk turns to questions of proof, justification or cause for belief in God. You however do not strike me as someone who will be uncomfortable discussing this.

Today, I came across a posting of your purported “4 step proof for God” and your promise of a substantial reward for an acceptable overturning of this proof.

“If you would like to make an attempt to disprove the proof for God, there is a forum (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=544) where you can do so. $10,000in U.S. dollars (getting cheaper by the day) has been reserved and offered to the first person who can disprove God's proof of Himself. Thousands have tried but failed. Since I am a child of God and thus, set before God with authority in His kingdom and bound for heaven, you can't ask for a better arbitrator.”

As the sole arbitrator, and a true believer I hope you will not be greatly biased against my thoughts and observations. Often when arguments deal with people’s most closely held ideas, the ability and willingness to entertain an opposing point of view is lost. The fact that you have published this proof seems to suggest that you are open to the idea that logic evidence can rule in or out the existence of God. An idea with which I disagree, which classes me as an agnostic.

I would ask you to keep an open mind and consider my thoughts, in the spirit of openness, and if possible entertain for a while my position – agnosticism – and pretend to examine the proof from my perspective – one without God.

PREFACE

What constitutes proof?

I consider proof as having two essential components.

·Correspondence to reality, a definite, demonstrable factual basis
·Logical rigor, conclusions follow deductively from conclusions, no logical fallacies.

If your 4 step proof lacks these two things in any respect you must admit that the “4 Step Proof” is flawed, wrong and hence overturned. That is unless it is actually 4 separate proofs. Perhaps you disagree with what I consider to constitute proof, please advise me of your definition.

In response to my commentary and the flaws found you will be aware that you cannot logically give recourse to arguments from God, or any statement or idea garnered from scriptures since, this proof purports to prove the existence of God. Rebutting in this way would clearly constitute circular reasoning as the existence of God would be implied.

For every system of ideas you will find a basis which requires belief – that is axioms. There is no proof for these axioms – otherwise this proof forms the basic axioms of the system.

In Christianity, there are two fundamental axioms;
·There is a God
·The Bible is inerrant/ mostly inerrant
Without accepting these two axioms, one is not a Christian – all else follows from this basis.

In my previous discussions with Christians I discovered that this basis is untenable – it is not arrived at through reason, or rationalization, but supported by faith– arguments and rationalizations come later. Though rather than the axioms untenability being a weakness of Christianity – it is its greatest strength. Rational argument alone cannot dissuade a person of faith from their beliefs, simply because there was never a rational foundation to question.

I do not claim to provide a disproof for the conclusion that there is a God; I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement. What I will dispute is the factuality, and logical validity of the overall proof, its premises and mechanisms.

I also want to make it clear – though I admit that I was unable to comprehend all that is written here – if any of these flaws remain inadequately and fallaciously answered, you must in good faith accept that the proof being in part flawed is in its entirety flawed. My exposition however is not a proof but commentary and criticism and is not subject to the above mentioned condition, as its observations are separate unto themselves.

Churchwork

07-17-2009, 07:03 AM

you cannot logically give recourse to arguments from...scriptures since, this proof purports to prove the existence of God.
You are allowed to use logical arguments Scripture uses if they hold logically as well as the proof for the resurrection using the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2256) which does not claim inerrancy.

For every system of ideas you will find a basis which requires belief – that is axioms. There is no proof for these axioms – otherwise this proof forms the basic axioms of the system.

This proof is different. It holds no assumptions whatsoever. The evidence leads to the conclusion.

In Christianity, there are two fundamental axioms;
·There is a God
·The Bible is inerrant/ mostly inerrant
Without accepting these two axioms, one is not a Christian – all else follows from this basis.

In Christianity, God's existence is not an axiom, but the evidence comes to this conclusion that God exists. This is called evidentialism of the likes of Gary R. Habermas, William Lane Craig and John Warwick Montgomery.

As was said inerrancy or partial inerrancy is not assumed. Any information we glean from the Scriptures must meet the highest of historical standards historians insist upon.

While it is true a person can be a Christian by assuming inerrancy and God exists, because they have personal revelation (which proves itself), that is not the method of proof I am using. When I came to Christ it was by personal revelation simply realizing all things summed up in Christ and I even had one many might call a Third Heaven experience.

In my previous discussions with Christians I discovered that this basis is untenable – it is not arrived at through reason, or rationalization, but supported by faith– arguments and rationalizations come later. Though rather than the axioms untenability being a weakness of Christianity – it is its greatest strength. Rational argument alone cannot dissuade a person of faith from their beliefs, simply because there was never a rational foundation to question.
As was shown, under revelation by the Holy Spirit for these axioms if there were any axioms, don't last because the proof is substantial. They fall away. The greatest strength of Christianity I believe is how deep it reaches into your inner man-it's greatest strength! Reasonable arguments can help draw a person in to ask more questions and place some doubt which sets the stage for revelation of the Holy Spirit doing a work on that person.

There was no rationale basis for you not being a Christian, so to no logical arguments could work on you unless you come to God with an honest heart.

But our discussion is based on evidence of observing nature, for God said nature will prove His existence even Jesus Christ.

If you don't search God with all your heart, that explains why you haven't found Him yet. "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)

I do not claim to provide a disproof for the conclusion that there is a God; I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement. What I will dispute is the factuality, and logical validity of the overall proof, its premises and mechanisms.
Don't think revelation and proofs in nature are mutually exclusive. They are both doable. Even if God were to come and announce His retirement, how would you affirm He is God? Is your criteria the basis? Why would your criteria be better than the next person?

What matters is you can't disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach which is embedded within it showing none can compare to Christ.

I also want to make it clear – though I admit that I was unable to comprehend all that is written here – if any of these flaws remain inadequately and fallaciously answered, you must in good faith accept that the proof being in part flawed is in its entirety flawed. My exposition however is not a proof but commentary and criticism and is not subject to the above mentioned condition, as its observations are separate unto themselves.
Petty self arguments don't count.

Churchwork

07-18-2009, 01:10 AM

Hi I watched Ravi's video " How do you know there is a God" - I tried to be clear in why these arguments are disagreeable.

Ravi – establishing the existence of God
Sections - however you slice matter, its basic form – is a physical entity that does not have “a reason for existence in itself” – I agree, I don’t believe in teleology, reasons are the domain of people not physical entities
vCannot explain its own origin – assumes it has an origin, maybe not?

What he is saying is nothing in nature can cause itself since everything in nature has a cause; therefore, the universe can't cause itself, for it requires a cause to. This is Step 2 of the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm).

Necessitates supernatural/ non physical first cause – God, maybe? – why does the most basic form of existence require an origin or an explanation? God does not seem to require one so obviously, Christians are more open to this idea than scientists.
It doesn’t seem right to me that one can look at the physical world, and draw the conclusion that there must be something, supernatural or outside of nature to explain it, merely because currently we cannot explain it in terms of itself. Rejecting out of hand all possibilities of a natural cause, in order to posit a supernatural one is not a good argument.

Automobiles don't come together by themselves. They require intelligence. The universe itself is not intelligence.

“To Design” or Paley’s Analogy
Wrappers or alphabets suggest information/ sequence – Yes, one type
Assume from a Mind – Yes, when you see human designed objects
e.g. enzyme – random possibility 1 in 10^40000 – Singh Cardiff Wales – or as Paley said “ exceeds computation” “mathematically the possibility is zero” – obviously it is at least slightly greater than 0 - indeed 13.7 billion years is a long time and amazing things can and have resulted.
So there's a designer - is his name God maybe?
I am glad you can at least admit there is an uncreated Creator. He is called God since none can compare to Christ.

It’s merely a false analogy, yes we assume a human designer for human designed objects like music and alphabets. Yet this does not conclusively prove the necessity for a universe creating intelligence – There are different types of information – those formed by humans, and those that arise from natural processes.
In the words of Darwin, regarding evolution which replaced the necessity of explaining the amazing diversity and complexity of life through God.
Since your universe can't create an automobile without intelligence, your reality is false.

“It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers.... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
-The Origin of Species

Once you realize God exists, then find out who He is. You'll soon discover none can compare to Christ.

Moral, social issues, human intercourse demands explanation of a moral reality – moral reality -> why – explain it any way you like – reality does not make demands – people make demands.
Moral reality can't just exist all by itself. It has a cause. Objective morality can't exist without God.

Adam

07-18-2009, 02:45 PM

Thankyou for your patience and considered reply. I do enjoy lively discussion and debate. I will not leave any part unanswered.

You are allowed to use logical arguments Scripture uses if they hold logically as well as the proof for the resurrection using the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2256) which does not claim inerrancy.
I agree using logical arguments that you find in scriptures is perfectly acceptable. I guess I was not clear what I meant. The point I was trying to convey is this - using statements (statements or declarations alone in contrast to logical arguments) from Scripture as proof/ evidence would not be acceptable in a Proof of God - since without already assuming God scriptures hold no authority. I mention this since often in discussion people have declared that God must exist since the Bible says He does, yet trust in the Bible is based on already assuming God exists - which is clearly circular and illogical.
"proof for resurrection" seems to be a fairly large assumption to me - is the proof stories and testimony - first hand? second hand?

no assumptions whatsoever
I'm not sure this is possible, whenever argument is made there are always assumptions - you and me share many presuppositions or without which we could not communicate, it is simply a part of our language.
for example;

The evidence leads to the conclusion.
Presupposes or assumes, the existence of the evidence, and the idea that it can "lead"

God's existence is not an axiom, but the evidence comes to this conclusion that God exists. This is called evidentialism
The idea that evidence is possible and exists is called evidentialism? I will look into it to get a more general understanding of the debate.

God's existence is not an axiom.....the evidence comes to this conclusion that God exists
This is what we are discussing, no? So it seems the more general foundation of our disagreement is on the philosophy and nature of evidence.

I have stated my conception of what constitutes evidence, under the idea "What is Proof" please elaborate on yours so we may be speaking the same language.
I guess the difference may be is that i do not consider "personal revelation" as a form of evidence. It may be enough to convince one who experiences it - but when communicated to others it is merely personal testimony, hearsay, not logical or rational proof. I have very vivid dreams when i sleep, I could assume that these happened in an actual world with material existence because i have perceived them - yet obviously perception and reality are not perfectly synonymous. I would not be able to convince you except through inducements that my imaginary world is actual.

the proof is substantial.
Again this is the subject of our debate - stating something has an attribute is not an argument, does not make it so.

The greatest strength of Christianity I believe is how deep it reaches into your inner man-it's greatest strength!
I too agree this is Christianity's greatest strength - It's reliance on and emotional pull - who does not wish to live in a world where there is providence,knowledge of origins, removal of death, assurance of paradise and community,and certainty about what to think, how to act and a life's purpose.

Marx did not call religion the opiate of the masses without reason. It removes pain, and makes one happier in general.

our discussion is based on evidence of observing natureI'm glad we can rule out testimony and revelation in this discussion, as I really don't agree that this is strong evidence.

Don't think revelation and proofs in nature are mutually exclusive. They are both doable. Even if God were to come and announce His retirement, how would you affirm He is God? Is your criteria the basis? Why would your criteria be better than the next person? Sorry, that was a little humour, but the questions you pose are very valid - how would you answer them.
How could you affirm God based on a physical manifestation? (like a man)
Can there be a standard of judgement a principle for testing revelation? true or false?
If so what are your criteria?

What matters is you can't disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach which is embedded within it showing none can compare to Christ.Why can't it be disproven?
What to your mind would constitute a disproof?
I will read the minimal facts approach - would finding a flaw in this constitute disproof in your mind - since a proven origin would then not necessitate this origin being Jesus/Biblical God.

Petty self arguments don't count. Sorry if I was unclear my point was twofold;

1. I consider that if a proof has but one flaw in it's essential parts, though the conclusion may still hold the proof does not - do you agree?

2. Dismissing my entire commentary based on one or a few points, is not justified since it is not a coherent proof ( like above) but a commentary, a laundry list of doubts and flaws.

Really what i was asking here is that you address each point separately rather than dismissing my thoughts out of hand. I ask this again in consideration of my reply.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the arguments from Ravi - I was mostly trying to summarise what I understood of the video's message for the benefit of anyone else reading, though my commentary questions about it are this;

Assuming "a reason for existence" - why assume a reason for existence, or the requirement of a cause?

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused?

what proof do you have of the universality causation? an idea which has been scientifically abandoned since the inception of quantum mechanics?

The argument in the proof is a variation on Ravi's argument, The proof which relies on the universe being temporal- In Big Bang Theory Time was created as well as matter, so asking what came before is meaningless in this theory - that is it offers an logical physical alternative to the conclusion in Step 1 whether you accept the theory or not.

and if you assume or can prove there is one - why assume it is supernatural?, or even your God rather than someother person or religious conception of god/s?

Automobiles -They require intelligence. The universe itself is not intelligence.I agree automobiles are designed and built by humans, and the universe is not synonymous with intelligence my question was this..

why does the most basic form of existence require an origin or an explanation?
(God does not seem to require one so obviously, Christians are open to this idea)

And given that explanation is desired and required, assuming there is not a physical explanation, or foundation is unwarranted as it would require full knowledge all physical objects and relationships, in order to dismiss the possibility. It is not enough to merely state there can be no physical explanation.

admit there is an uncreated CreatorI was not admitting rather summarising Ravi, you were probably thought it was unrelated to the argument above - because it is - that was my point. My contention is that enzymes can and be explained without divine, intervention, obviously the possibility of this happening is not zero, merely small, yet 13.7 billion years is a long time in which probabilities of occurances though small can happen.

Since your universe can't create an automobile without intelligence, your reality is false.Our universe obviously did create an automobile - humans and their intelligence are not set apart from nature, but rather part of it. Are the enzymes talked about above not an essential component, of what you are? of our shared evolution?

Moral reality can't just exist all by itself. It has a cause. Objective morality can't exist without God. I really don't know what you refer to with the phrase "moral reality"

Why can't objective reality exist without God?

Well we agree that objective reality exists - I still see no valid reason for it to be necessary for an explanation in terms of a God.

Churchwork

07-18-2009, 06:32 PM

"proof for resurrection" seems to be a fairly large assumption to me - is the proof stories and testimony - first hand? second hand?

First hand.

Presupposes or assumes, the existence of the evidence, and the idea that it can "lead"
I don't see this as an assumption, because evidence reveals itself, so it is not assumed. These words evidence towards my existence that are typing them.

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused?
Because all physical things have a cause.

yet 13.7 billion years is a long time in which probabilities of occurances though small can happen.
The probability is zero because there has not been enough interatomic interactions to make a single celled living organism.

Why can't objective reality exist without God?
Because it would be subjective relative to each person.

To assume or to state that no possible physical explanation can or will exist – I think cannot be properly made without total and absolute knowledge of all physical objects
What you are doing is you have to be God to know if God existence which is arrogant. All the law requires is a preponderance of evidence.

Belief in God comes before the argument, not following from it.

For me, the evidence keeps me secure, since I don't know hot disprove the 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm) and the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2256), nor do you, so that is a good testimony too.

Adam

07-19-2009, 04:29 PM

Reply to resurrection proof
I don't regard testimony as proof, and it is easy to conceive why someone like Paul would fabricate a noble lie about it if he truly believed in the value of Christianity's teachings and its continued propagation. Resurrection of Jesus being the most important thing to accept after belief in God by Paul's own account. Considering the people's Jewish context it is even easier to see why resurrection would be claimed for Jesus as the idea for a resurrected prophet was not created, but already existed - and I would say utilized.

Consider these alternatives:
1a. Jesus did not die but recovered/survived or died and his body was stolen.
1b. His resurrection was symbolic rather than physical
2. Paul's testimony is unreliable
3. People were willing to die to propagate belief in resurrection because it is critical to the acceptance of Christianity.

I do share Paul's sentiment about the importance of accepting this belief.

if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.I imagine back in those days bearing such false witness was considered to be punishable by death. Yet Paul considered such a sacrifice to be worthwhile if it could secure for others "hope in Christ" which it did. And so Paul's memory is not left in the dust but preserved and raised up - so to speak

I don't see this as an assumptionMy point was statements themselves are the assumptions, the assumption being that words signify something actual - point to real objects - are not simulacra.

as Shakespeare said;

More strange than true: I never may believe
These antique fables, nor these fairy toys.
Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends.
The lunatic, the lover and the poet
Are of imagination all compact:
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold,
That is, the madman: the lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt:
The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
Such tricks hath strong imagination,
That if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear!

gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name - i.e. words creating objects

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused? Because all physical things have a cause.That's a circular argument - I was questioning that all physical things have a cause - a contention which physicists have now rejected - so I ask on what basis you still hold it to be true?

The probability is zero because there has not been enough interatomic interactions to make a single celled living organism.Obviously this is incorrect, do you know how many "interatomic interactions" there have been? can such a thing be quantified? I would say the number is vastly greater than the amount of atoms - the number quoted by Ravi.

objective reality exist without God? Because it would be subjective relative to each personreality is subjective to each person? - that's the meaning of subjective reality.

Having subjective reality does not rule out objective reality - I believe such a belief is called solipsism - look it up it's amusing.

you have to be God to know if God existence - which is arrogant. ummm.. yes that's my point - arrogant is technically a good way of describing the point of view though it holds negative connotations - I would say assuming there is a God based on supposed logic is merely mistaken and wishful thinking.

All the law requires is a preponderance of evidence.Yes.

the evidence keeps me secure, since I don't know hot disprove the 4 Step Proof for God (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)I do, but since you are the arbiter it's up to me to find disproof or flaws you will accept.

Churchwork

07-19-2009, 05:35 PM

I don't regard testimony as proof, and it is easy to conceive why someone like Paul would fabricate a noble lie about it if he truly believed in the value of Christianity's teachings and its continued propagation. Resurrection of Jesus being the most important thing to accept after belief in God by Paul's own account. Considering the people's Jewish context it is even easier to see why resurrection would be claimed for Jesus as the idea for a resurrected prophet was not created, but already existed - and I would say utilized.
You'd have to throw out all history and not accept anything of any historical event in humankind, for they are based on testimonies, written accounts and oral traditions. I don't know any historians who would do history that way, for there would be no history to report then and we could glean nothing from the past.

A more reasonable approach is to realize that since people don't die for something they know is a lie, we can be confident Paul and the other eyewitness Apostles truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Therefore, one should investigate this and unless you can come up with a naturalistic explanation, it is therefore, true. This isn't rocket science. You should be able to come up with a viable explanation. So far you haven't been able to, which is a great testimony for the Lord.

Consider these alternatives:
1a. Jesus did not die but recovered/survived or died and his body was stolen.
1b. His resurrection was symbolic rather than physical
2. Paul's testimony is unreliable
3. People were willing to die to propagate belief in resurrection because it is critical to the acceptance of Christianity.

I do share Paul's sentiment about the importance of accepting this belief.

Your theory Jesus did not die has some problems with it. If Jesus didn't die on the cross he presents himself as a liar, for he admitted to the disciples he had died. Furthermore, he could hardly be construed as the risen Lord in such a decrepit state with his back all mangled to the bone, all the water in his chest cavity gone, holes in his hands and his feet. Medical doctors say it is impossible to last on the cross for more than 12 minutes with their legs unsupported. They suffocate to death. The Roman guards would have been put to death if they had let Jesus live. The tomb was empty. The Jews never contested his death. Enemy attestation is powerful. The Romans never contested his death. Nobody in the first century contested his death. They guarded his tomb with two Roman guards. A member of the Jewish Sanhedrin went in and put spices on his dead body. The disciples were distraught their Messiah was dead and had no expectation of his resurrection as they were naive. They weren't parading around proclaiming to people he really wasn't dead but will rise again on Sunday. They never did that. When they were told of his death, and John, Mary and other women witnessed his death, there could be no doubt.

There is never any indication in Scripture his resurrection was symbolic, nor does a symbolic resurrection account for the empty tomb or give us hope.

Of all the writers of the OT, scholars consider Paul's writings the most reliable. And of all Paul's writings they consider 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 the earliest and most reliable. So you will have to take him on his clear words. He admits if Jesus was not raised from the dead physically then Christianity would be a lie. He also says if he is teaching anything that was not originally in the early creed then people could come forward and testify otherwise. None did. He got the creeds from James, Peter and John whom he met soon after the cross.

I imagine back in those days bearing such false witness was considered to be punishable by death. Yet Paul considered such a sacrifice to be worthwhile if it could secure for others "hope in Christ" which it did. And so Paul's memory is not left in the dust but preserved and raised up - so to speak
My point was statements themselves are the assumptions, the assumption being that words signify something actual - point to real objects - are not simulacra.

How can there be any hope of Christ and Paul actually himself believe it if he willingly made up a story he saw Jesus alive from the dead?

When you read the Scriptures with an honest heart, you clearly see over and over again, it was a physically raised body of Jesus which accounts for the empty tomb; but you don't account for the empty tomb, nor show how through the Scriptures they were presenting a symbolic body.

That's a circular argument - I was questioning that all physical things have a cause - a contention which physicists have now rejected - so I ask on what basis you still hold it to be true?
What physicists claim something in nature happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon? We have trillions of observable causes and effects in nature which is a preponderance of evidence. Don't you think claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional? If I had believed that I would admit I was delusional. Can you do the same?

Obviously this is incorrect, do you know how many "interatomic interactions" there have been? can such a thing be quantified? I would say the number is vastly greater than the amount of atoms - the number quoted by Ravi.

Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning.

The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days (http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6712), pp. 224-25).

Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

reality is subjective to each person? - that's the meaning of subjective reality.
No. If someone says it is alright to do something and another person says it is not, then their opinions are in conflict and they don't settle on an objective reality. But we do know objective reality must exist because people do agree on some things like murder, rape and crime are wrong. Where does this objective reality come from? It doesn't just happen all by itself. It has a cause. There must be a source that is likewise objective and moral. Since nature itself is not moral or immoral, there is a Creator who is objectively moral.

Having subjective reality does not rule out objective reality - I believe such a belief is called solipsism - look it up it's amusing.
Solipsism is extreme ego-centrism. No matter how amusing you may thing it is it is still wrong. It's quite narcissistic. This does not adhere to objective reality but is onto self.

ummm.. yes that's my point - arrogant is technically a good way of describing the point of view though it holds negative connotations - I would say assuming there is a God based on supposed logic is merely mistaken and wishful thinking.

Now you rule out all logic and reasoning to be allowed to know if God exists? So aren't you saying there is nothing you will allow to convince you? That seems closed minded and illogical and contrary to the evidence: 1) trillions of causes and effects, and 2) you can't find any naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data.

I do, but since you are the arbiter it's up to me to find disproof or flaws you will accept.
I am glad you haven't been able to for yourself find any disproof of the proof for God or the Minimal Facts approach proving Jesus is God.

Keep trying if you like like the thousands that have tried before you who all failed, but be honest with yourself after many tries you still can't come up with something that should be relatively simple to disprove for this isn't rocket science. Therefore, realize it is just that same old heart of independency from God that is the source of your problem like Adam and Cain had and which you were born into but you are not a prisoner of, for God does give you the choice. If you want to remain as you are then you will spend an eternity in Hell.

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1064

Praise the Lord!

Adam

07-20-2009, 09:01 AM

people don't die for something they know is a lie, we can be confident Paul and the other eyewitness Apostles truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.No, but people can be mistaken, and as we know Paul truly believed that it was important for the world to believe in Resurrection, in order to follow Christianity -- is it so hard to believe he might also fabricate a story?, if he was obviously willing to give his own life - and that of others to encourage people to believe.

Unless you can come up with proof that a mistake, or deception is not a possible alternative you must admit that there is reasonable doubt for resurrection, the unprecedented nature of the supposed event alone should demand more thorough investigation and more doubt on your part.

My viable explanation is this - it probably didn't happen because there are much more rational and viable explanations than a dead person magically reanimating.

This isn't rocket science and should be obvious to anyone who is honest and rational. Unless you can provide some overwhelming proof that it actually happened, which you have not - you must admit some doubt.

You state I offer no alternative explanations right before quoting, some that I have.

Your theory Jesus did not die has some problems with it. If Jesus didn't die on the cross he presents himself as a liar, for he admitted to the disciples he had died. Furthermore, he could hardly be construed as the risen Lord in such a decrepit state with his back all mangled to the bone, all the water in his chest cavity gone, holes in his hands and his feet. Medical doctors say it is impossible to last on the cross for more than 12 minutes with their legs unsupported. They suffocate to death. The Roman guards would have been put to death if they had let Jesus live. The tomb was empty. The Jews never contested his death. Enemy attestation is powerful. The Romans never contested his death. Nobody in the first century contested his death. They guarded his tomb with two Roman guards. A member of the Jewish Sanhedrin went in and put spices on his dead body. The disciples were distraught their Messiah was dead and had no expectation of his resurrection as they were naive. They weren't parading around proclaiming to people he really wasn't dead but will rise again on Sunday. They never did that. When they were told of his death, and John, Mary and other women witnessed his death, there could be no doubt. There is never any indication in Scripture his resurrection was symbolic, nor does a symbolic resurrection account for the empty tomb or give us hope.Yes but this is all drawn from the bible, my point is you can't depend on this as unquestioned truth - without absolute trust - which is unwarranted and irrational.

How can there be any hope of Christ and Paul actually himself believe it if he willingly made up a story he saw Jesus alive from the dead?That's my point Paul understood - extremely clearly - and conveyed the importance of this belief and the implications of its absence with great clarity. Christianity falters if there is any doubt in this story - doubt you would have if you considered the rationally viable alternatives - which you have not disproven.

claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional? If I had believed that I would admit I was delusional.Don't you believe that God happens all by himself - like magic?

Magic? I did not say magic i said unknown physical causes, and there is "happening" only if you assume absolutely everything has a cause and a beginning - which is a fairly large assumption - with no backing on your part.

Would you admit you were delusional?

I think the idea of dead people being alive again after days being dead sounds "Magical"

mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.Obviously it isn't impossible - since cells exist

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe.In case you haven't noticed the attribute that all life shares is the ability to reproduce - you don't need to make each one randomly

must happen by chance--and it can't.claiming or stating this - no matter how much you want it to be true - does not make it true.

No. If someone says it is alright to do something and another person says it is not, then their opinions are in conflict and they don't settle on an objective reality. But we do know objective reality must exist because people do agree on some things like murder, rape and crime are wrong. Where does this objective reality come from? It doesn't just happen all by itself. It has a cause. There must be a source that is likewise objective and moral. Since nature itself is not moral or immoral, there is a Creator who is objectively moral.Objective reality has nothing to do with people agreeing about moral judgments - it is a conception of reality as distinct from people’s perceptions and thoughts about it. - i.e. the subjective.

objectively moral.I believe that is an oxymoron

Since nature itself is not moral or immoralYour right nature isn't moral - morality is all about human judgment, about what they consider acceptable/ unacceptable behavior - which is totally subjective - i.e. dependent on the person. Oh and yes most people agree that they don't want to be murdered, and no this does not make the moral "murder is unacceptable" objective - people generally don't want to be killed - not people will not kill another person.

It has a cause....there is a CreatorAgain you have not proven that there is a cause that must be God you simply state it, a lot.

To assume or to state that no possible physical explanation can or will exist – I think cannot be properly made without total and absolute knowledge of all physical objects --(your reply) What you are doing is you have to be God to know if God existence which is arrogant.
you have to be God to know if God existenceYes - if your argument is based on the premise that no possible physical cause can exist well in order to prove (rather than assuming or inferring) that wouldn't you need to rule out all physical causes - which would require knowing them? or as you put it "to be God" - to think such would be extremely arrogant but that is the point upon which your proof rests.

So aren't you saying there is nothing you will allow to convince youNo , in context with what came before i was saying - that i don't think your flawed proof was arrogant- (your word) - only mistaken, and wishful.

contrary to the evidence: 1) trillions of causes and effects, and 2) you can't find any naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data.the "data" you speak of is not "naturalistic" data but testimony, and stories of testimony - I made my point clearly - testimony and records of testimony can be flawed and fabricated - I even suggested a valid alternative motivation - only because you suggested motivation alone could be proof - which it isn't.

trillions of causes and effects so "trillions of causes and effects" - all of which are natural and physical rather and supernatural - suggest to you that the universe cannot possibly have a basis in natural causes, that complex chemistry cannot arise from a physical cause - even though it has been proven and demonstrated in experiments, and there must be as you put it "magic" to explain things we cannot.

Oh and I am closed minded and illogical to think that maybe the physical world might possibly be sufficient, without assuming supernatural causes by dismissing all possible physical explanations unknown and even the known and demonstrated.

How illogical of me, how contrary to the evidence of what?
Testimony from a strongly biased Paul - couldn't possibly be a lie
The agreed upon fact that the natural world can be accounted for in every other way by physical means ( i.e. cause and effect) That somehow leads to you to the conclusion that we should dismiss the possibility of physical causes in order to necessitate the supernatural.

be honest with yourself.... relatively simple to disprove for this isn't rocket science......independency from God ....the choice...If you want to remain as you are that is your choice but I have shown you many logical flaws, assumptions and possible alternative explanations - all of which you dismiss out of hand - without bothering to address with consideration - or without recourse to your beliefs. Again I will say you can chooses to remain as you are and believe in God - I only ask you to admit that this belief underlies everything else - and is the foundation on which you maintain your proof - directly and indirectly - since it cannot be arrived at and believed with certainty by reason alone - which always commands one to doubt - something you seem to lack willfully.
I have given reasons for doubting the proof, flaws in arguments, and reliance on unproven assumptions - you can be honest and accept this - or continue to dismiss them in dubious fashion.

I now understand why no-one has succeeded - you consider the proof perfect, believe in it with the unquestioning faith that is usually reserved for God. This is a faith that reason will not shake - but once more for I will ask - do any of these considerations seem in any way relevant, possible, plausible or reasonable to you? please be honest with me and yourself.

Reasonable Doubt?

Testimony - it requires trust to believe - it is not physical proof but written record - and so has no place in a "perfect proof"

-Fabrication by Paul - (possible motivation) for the purpose of furthering Jesus' message - a plausible alternative

Without first believing in God when considering the proof the Bible's statements do not hold authority or truth by fiat, and are questionable like any other testimony -

Most if not all information regarding Jesus is drawn from the Bible.

Other accounts for an empty tomb

The body was stolen
He didn't die
It is just a story

Proving rather than claiming that there can be no possible physical explanation - "a miracle" - would require absolute knowledge of the physical world - so to does claiming that all physical reality has an attribute of any sort - generally when laws are made in science they are provisonal - The laws of Universal Gravitation - were Universal - until we discovered exceptions to them

claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional

A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.

Her follows my original thoughts written before first posting my Preface to understand your position better - I still feel they are relevent without modification:

Hi Troy, my name is Adam.

Having been raised and schooled in a Christian environment, the question of God's existence has always been of interest to me. In the interest of open dialogue I must admit that I am an agnostic, having never found the argument for believing satisfactory, although recently I have perceived that there is something eternal, unchanging and pervasive – an underlying cosmic order which is very beautiful. I have always been fond of talking about religion, though my friends (most of which are Christians of varying degrees) inevitably become uncomfortable when talk turns to questions of proof, justification or cause for belief in God. You however do not strike me as someone who will be uncomfortable discussing this.
Today, I came across a posting of your purported “4 step proof for God” and your promise of a substantial reward for an acceptable overturning of this proof.

“If you would like to make an attempt to disprove the proof for God, there is a forum (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=544) where you can do so. $10,000in U.S. dollars (getting cheaper by the day) has been reserved and offered to the first person who can disprove God's proof of Himself. Thousands have tried but failed. Since I am a child of God and thus, set before God with authority in His kingdom and bound for heaven, you can't ask for a better arbitrator.”

As the sole arbitrator, and a true believer I hope you will not be greatly biased against my thoughts and observations. Often when arguments deal with people’s most closely held ideas, the ability and willingness to entertain an opposing point of view is lost. The fact that you have published this proof seems to suggest that you are open to the idea that logic evidence can rule in or out the existence of God. An idea with which I disagree, which classes me as an agnostic.
I would ask you to keep an open mind and consider my thoughts, in the spirit of openness, and if possible entertain for a while my position – agnosticism – and pretend to examine the proof from my perspective – one without God.

PREFACE

What constitutes proof?

I consider proof as having two essential components.
·Correspondence to reality, a definite, demonstrable factual basis
·Logical rigor, conclusions follow deductively from conclusions, no logical fallacies.

If your 4 step proof lacks these two things in any respect you must admit that the “4 Step Proof” is flawed, wrong and hence overturned. That is unless it is actually 4 separate proofs. Perhaps you disagree with what I consider to constitute proof, please advise me of your definition.

In response to my commentary and the flaws found you will be aware that you cannot logically give recourse to arguments from God, or any statement or idea garnered from scriptures since, this proof purports to prove the existence of God. Rebutting in this way would clearly constitute circular reasoning as the existence of God would be implied.

For every system of ideas you will find a basis which requires belief – that is axioms. There is no proof for these axioms – otherwise this proof forms the basic axioms of the system.

In Christianity, there are two fundamental axioms;

·There is a God
·The Bible is inerrant/ mostly inerrant

Without accepting these two axioms, one is not a Christian – all else follows from this basis.
In my previous discussions with Christians I discovered that this basis is untenable – it is not arrived at through reason, or rationalization, but supported by faith– arguments and rationalizations come later. Though rather than the axioms untenability being a weakness of Christianity – it is its greatest strength. Rational argument alone cannot dissuade a person of faith from their beliefs, simply because there was never a rational foundation to question.

I do not claim to provide a disproof for the conclusion that there is a God;

I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement. What I will dispute is the factuality, and logical validity of the overall proof, its premises and mechanisms.

I also want to make it clear – though I admit that I was unable to comprehend all that is written here – if any of these flaws remain inadequately and fallaciously answered, you must in good faith accept that the proof being in part flawed is in its entirety flawed. My exposition however is not a proof but commentary and criticism and is not subject to the above mentioned condition, as it’s observations are separate unto themselves.

STEP 1 – DISALLOWING ETERNITY

“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), 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.”

“Why is eternally evolving in the past of cause and effect (do not confuse this with the limitedness of evolution, the physical science, since the amoeba) NOT TRUE, in the physical realm (material nature), biologically or non-biologically, organically or non-organically; that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity.”

Assumptions
·Cause and effect
·Sin is real

Premise: Sin exists
Premise: Sin decreases with time
Mechanism: “evolving/progression of conscience”
Measure: Violent Crime, historical atrocities examples
Premise: With infinite time sin converges on nothing (i.e. sin does not exist)

Conclusion: Therefore time is not infinite/ eternal

Talking of human sins? – Though the universe may/ or may not be eternal humans have not existed for eternity. This is a simple explanation of why this argument is flawed. Since humans are a recent addition to this universe, regardless of the validity of the mechanism suggested human sinfulness cannot be used imply that the universe had a beginning, is eternal, or cyclic in nature – as humans have existed for a comparatively miniscule amount of time. That is to say the domain of your “calculus” graph is grossly exaggerated and so flawed.

Factual premise – Sin is decreasing? What is sin?

In this measure sin is considered equivalent and synonymous with violent crime, regardless of whether violent crime is actually increasing or decreasing worldwide. I surmise that you would agree that sin is more inclusive than this. If we consider only the dictates of the ten commandments, it should be apparent that sinfulness is more likely increasing greatly rather than decreasing – in contradiction to the premise that sin decreases with time. Think of coveting, marital infidelity, wars – it may not be that sin has decreased – but sin is no longer considered by many sinful ( think usury and its recent effects), and we have become better at both sinning and the powerful at subjecting the weak – to the point where they do so willingly. The measure of the current level of sinfulness is inadequate and doubtful, as is the contention that the level of sin is decreasing.

The sample size of the violent graph is too small, geographically and temporally to draw these conclusions from it.

The claim that there is some mechanism by which people’s consciences are becoming more evolved is highly questionable, and seemingly disproved by the fact the mechanism is not working. No proof of the mechanism itself is offered only a vague mish mash of scientific sounding words, and a graph without quantities! One example of past atrocities does not make a proof. Your proof falls back on this supposed progression of conscience so many times yet it is unproven, and undemonstrated.

Secondly, I will say that sin is not in the same category as physical objects – sin is behavior that we judge to be in violation with moral precepts – regardless of their origin Christian or otherwise. Consider that sin may be seen to be decreasing only because our definition and awareness of sin is waning when compared to the more far reaching, and powerful effects one person can have on others in the modern world.
Slavery still exists. Some People are stilling willing to have slaves if allowed.

STEP 2 THE UNIVERSE CAN'T CAUSE ITSELF

“Scientists believe nothing in nature-space or time-happens all by itself. It always has a cause. We have trillions of things to substantiate this fact, but nothing to conclusively show otherwise. Therefore, since nature must always have a cause and time can't cause itself, the only possibility that exists we can conclude and fits is the uncreated Created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ. You are welcome to compare Jesus to any figure in history.”

Assumption: The universe is a thing; time is a thing, universal causality

Premise: Everything has a cause
Premise: The Universe had a beginning (i.e. is not eternal from STEP 1)
Conclusion The Universe had a first cause (read creator)
Conclusion # 2 The only possibility is God/Jesus. – Why?

Since I consider Step #1 flawed it follows that this argument is also flawed

Even assuming that the universe had a beginning, absence of knowledge of that beginning does not logically dictate that the only possibility can be God. Inference from Ignorance is not a form of proof; it is not logical or factual.

“There is always a cause to the effects in nature. Nothing in nature happens all by itself.”

And so as the argument goes the very first “natural effect” had a cause that could not be natural.

“Nothing in nature happens by itself” is a way of begging the question, for a supernatural first mover. A logical – simply stating this does not make it true.

“Not knowing what the cause is doesn't mean the uncreated is not the ultimate first cause.” Nor does it mean the opposite which you have clearly assumed to be true by stating “the only possibility that exists we can conclude and fits is the uncreated Created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ.” This is an undeniable flaw. You have stated your conclusion as an unproven premise within your proof – this is a logical flaw, a deal breaker.

If you ask “Who is the creator of the universe?” it is called begging the question, because the question implies without discussion the premise that there is a creator, even so you will find no rational or logical basis for assuming this creator is one in the same as Christian’s biblical God – that is merely wishful thinking and faith, as is assuming the bible is entirely or even mostly inerrant despite translation errors, current changes, known historical copying errors, apocrypha, a compendium of contradictions and the widely differing interpretations of the text.

The Universe is not an object but the set of all objects. A forest is not caused it is simply a collection of trees, it is the trees that are caused – by seeds – then cells – then genetics – then the molecular and atomic and finally quantum level. Respondents will mention evolution at these different hierarchies, and perhaps abiogenesis at the molecular level, and physics at the atomic level. Respondents will argue mentioning quantum physics, because it is currently the best model for explaining the origins and behavior of matter at its most fundamental level – the quantum level. Scientists anticipate that at the most elementary basis matter and forces will be found harmonious or an expression of each other. This has already been partly achieved with through wave-particle duality. Yet in the absence of knowledge scientists will offer only hypothesis, especially in the realm of cosmology which is heavily theoretical, the widely known “Big Bang” hypothesis is currently accepted as the most plausible scientific theory for the long history of the universe – however there is no suggestion of Jesus as a physical cause. It is worth considering that this hypothesis though widely supported might not necessarily be true, and makes no comment on what the universe was like before this moment – only afterwards. Perhaps our universe is cyclic, or matter and anti-matter spontaneously erupts from annihilation into separated pairs, and the universe is in fact an eternal stage. The fact remains- it is not known, assuming you know is just wrong.

PART 3 THE BIBLE

“This fact flows from the fact that God created as proven in the first two steps”

“The Bible was written over 1500 years by 40 spiritual men of God.”
– 40 - Prove It. You Can’t.

"why can't God have a creator?" – well really why not. It’s not enough just to say he can’t. To base your reason for thinking otherwise on the bible is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. You can’t believe in God because it says he exists in the bible, and then believe what the bible says because the bible says it is written by God. I don’t understand how people cannot see that as the awful logic it is.

“Not once has He ever sinned in the 66 books of God's Word.” Is murder a sin, infanticide a sin, impregnation outside of marriage? If you had the power to stop an atrocity with great ease, but chose not to would you consider yourself moral, without sin. If Jesus had the power to prevent his death, is not allowing it a form of suicide.

“The reason why unregenerates outside the kingdom of heaven can't sense or reason out that these 4 Steps are true is because God has not given it to them to be able to understand.”

No it’s simply because the proof is not perfect – far from it. It fails at being persuasive, encompassing, clear or logical.

“to believe in atheism/agnosticism, yet have no basis or valid reason for doing so. Isn't that called blind faith?”

·No, I do not consider atheism / agnosticism as faith positions, as both are negatively defined, saying only what a person is not, rather than what they are. Positive statements exclude many possibilities, negative statements exclude one specifically.

·Agnosticism is not “thinly veiled” atheism but a subtly different perspective. Strong atheists declare that there is no possibility of God/s existing through argument; strong agnostics say that proof either way is not rationally possible. Both are alike in that they declare an absence of belief in God.

Agnostics = no belief
Atheist = no possibility

·The difference from believers is that this decision is based on reasoning,

Churchwork

07-20-2009, 11:49 AM

No, but people can be mistaken, and as we know Paul truly believed that it was important for the world to believe in Resurrection, in order to follow Christianity -- is it so hard to believe he might also fabricate a story?, if he was obviously willing to give his own life - and that of others to encourage people to believe.

People don't die for something they know is a lie. To be mistaken would be group hallucinations which are impossible according to modern psychology.

Unless you can come up with proof that a mistake, or deception is not a possible alternative you must admit that there is reasonable doubt for resurrection, the unprecedented nature of the supposed event alone should demand more thorough investigation and more doubt on your part.
Deception is ruled out because people don't die for something they know is a lie. Group hallucinations are not possible so that rules out a mistake.

My viable explanation is this - it probably didn't happen because there are much more rational and viable explanations than a dead person magically reanimating.
If God created the universe, then He doesn't have to use magic. Since you can't find a viable explanation to explain it away, it must be true, Jesus is God.

This isn't rocket science and should be obvious to anyone who is honest and rational. Unless you can provide some overwhelming proof that it actually happened, which you have not - you must admit some doubt.
The proof was already given, the multiple attestation in 12 different group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

You state I offer no alternative explanations right before quoting, some that I have.
I addressed all your attempts and further attempts. Each of your attempts fail and I explain how.

Yes but this is all drawn from the bible, my point is you can't depend on this as unquestioned truth - without absolute trust - which is unwarranted and irrational.
But there are valid reasons to accept at least some things in Scripture such as Paul saying he met with James, Peter and John who testified they all had seen Jesus physically with Paul seeing Jesus objectively.

That's my point Paul understood - extremely clearly - and conveyed the importance of this belief and the implications of its absence with great clarity. Christianity falters if there is any doubt in this story - doubt you would have if you considered the rationally viable alternatives - which you have not disproven.
You're missing the point. People don't die for something they know is a lie, so Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and the Apostles who told him they saw Jesus resurrected physically.

Don't you believe that God happens all by himself - like magic?
The uncreated is proven to exist, because nature can't can't cause itself. God didn't happen, but He always was. So you don't need magic.

Magic? I did not say magic i said unknown physical causes, and there is "happening" only if you assume absolutely everything has a cause and a beginning - which is a fairly large assumption - with no backing on your part.
God is not physical, so it would be illogical to insist upon a physical cause for God. And it is illogical to ask for a cause to that which is uncreated. The preponderance of evidence is all things in nature have a cause. The odds are more than a trillion to 1 against you. It's like you have to be God to know if God exists which is pompous.

Would you admit you were delusional?
No. The evidence is clear, nothing in nature happens all by itself. Therefore, you must be delusional.

I think the idea of dead people being alive again after days being dead sounds "Magical"
Supernatural.

Obviously it isn't impossible - since cells exist
It's impossible Naturalistically and mathematically based on the laws of the universe.

In case you haven't noticed the attribute that all life shares is the ability to reproduce - you don't need to make each one randomly
How does the first replicating cell come into being when there has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe since the big bang?

claiming or stating this - no matter how much you want it to be true - does not make it true.
I know it is true, because you can't find a naturalistic explanation.

Objective reality has nothing to do with people agreeing about moral judgments - it is a conception of reality as distinct from people’s perceptions and thoughts about it. - i.e. the subjective.
I didn't saying objective reality has anything to do with people agreeing about it; rather, objective morality is observed by people agreeing about. Since it exists how can objective morality come from a universe prior to sentient life not having objective morality?

I believe that is an oxymoron
Why is objective morality an oxymoron? Since it is proven to exist.

Your right nature isn't moral - morality is all about human judgment, about what they consider acceptable/ unacceptable behavior - which is totally subjective - i.e. dependent on the person. Oh and yes most people agree that they don't want to be murdered, and no this does not make the moral "murder is unacceptable" objective - people generally don't want to be killed - not people will not kill another person.
There are things all humans agree on which indicates an objective morality and not merely dependent on the person. Everyone agrees they don't want other people to kill them, so that is an objective moral. Even if one person somewhere wanted to be killed, the preponderance of evidence of agreement indicates it is an objective moral.

Again you have not proven that there is a cause that must be God you simply state it, a lot.
The proof was given, since there are trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Yes - if your argument is based on the premise that no possible physical cause can exist well in order to prove (rather than assuming or inferring) that wouldn't you need to rule out all physical causes - which would require knowing them? or as you put it "to be God" - to think such would be extremely arrogant but that is the point upon which your proof rests.
You are the one demanding you would have to be God to know if God exists. That is indeed absurd. In a court of law such extreme absurdity is not required to prove the case. It's like you are playing the lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to 1. But as you keep discovering a trillion more causes the odds continue to increase against you, yet you still hold out. How absurd! This attitude is surely that of someone on his way to Hell.

No , in context with what came before i was saying - that i don't think your flawed proof was arrogant- (your word) - only mistaken, and wishful.
Mistaken how? You don't say. I covered all your responses. You still have the problem also that it appears nothing would convince you, so that seems closed minded.

the "data" you speak of is not "naturalistic" data but testimony, and stories of testimony - I made my point clearly - testimony and records of testimony can be flawed and fabricated - I even suggested a valid alternative motivation - only because you suggested motivation alone could be proof - which it isn't.
This testimony is data. You need a naturalistic explanation to counter it, but none have been forthcoming. You couldn't present any feasible flaw or fabrication. Vaguely saying so doesn't count. We are still left with the fact that people don't die for something they know is a lie. Therefore, they did not lie when they truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected.

so "trillions of causes and effects" - all of which are natural and physical rather and supernatural - suggest to you that the universe cannot possibly have a basis in natural causes, that complex chemistry cannot arise from a physical cause - even though it has been proven and demonstrated in experiments, and there must be as you put it "magic" to explain things we cannot.
Complex chemistry does arise from natural causes, but not for forever in the past, due the exponential progression of conscience and the law of heat death. Something coming into existence all by itself is magic, but an uncreated Creator creating intelligence is creating out of Himself and thus, not by magic.

Oh and I am closed minded and illogical to think that maybe the physical world might possibly be sufficient, without assuming supernatural causes by dismissing all possible physical explanations unknown and even the known and demonstrated.
Yes, you are being closed minded because there can't exist an eternity of the past of cause and effects due to the exponential progression of conscience and law of heat death. Therefore, the universe alone is not sufficient, which proves the existence of the uncreated as there is no other available possibility. If the natural can't be the ultimate cause, then it is the uncreated. It is also illogical to assume if there was one last thing that man didn't know to hold out for it possibly being proof the universe happened all by itself or always existed, because that goes against all odds. It's like you are the worst gambler every known to man.

How illogical of me, how contrary to the evidence of what? Testimony from a strongly biased Paul - couldn't possibly be a lie The agreed upon fact that the natural world can be accounted for in every other way by physical means ( i.e. cause and effect) That somehow leads to you to the conclusion that we should dismiss the possibility of physical causes in order to necessitate the supernatural.
People don't die for something they know to be a lie. This was many individuals who eye-witnessed Jesus alive from the dead and not individually only, but in many different group settings. The universe can't account for itself and we know it couldn't have always existed, because of heat death and the exponential progression of conscience. So yes, you're being illogical the fact that you are still on your way to Hell.

If you want to remain as you are that is your choice but I have shown you many logical flaws, assumptions and possible alternative explanations - all of which you dismiss out of hand - without bothering to address with consideration - or without recourse to your beliefs. Again I will say you can chooses to remain as you are and believe in God - I only ask you to admit that this belief underlies everything else - and is the foundation on which you maintain your proof - directly and indirectly - since it cannot be arrived at and believed with certainty by reason alone - which always commands one to doubt - something you seem to lack willfully.
As you have seen, I have responded to all your attempts. Each one has failed. Realize though many Christians come to Christ by revelation and not by any other means, that doesn't take away from proving God's existence. Naturally it has been shown, the only possibility is, Jesus is God. You can tell I am really born-again. You should admit all your opposition has one underlying cause, which is your hostility, the same hostility and independency Adam had at the fall.

I have given reasons for doubting the proof, flaws in arguments, and reliance on unproven assumptions - you can be honest and accept this - or continue to dismiss them in dubious fashion.
I have responded to all your points, one by one, showing how all your attempts have failed which gives people strong reason to believe you are going to Hell.

I now understand why no-one has succeeded - you consider the proof perfect, believe in it with the unquestioning faith that is usually reserved for God. This is a faith that reason will not shake - but once more for I will ask - do any of these considerations seem in any way relevant, possible, plausible or reasonable to you? please be honest with me and yourself.
There are things you can know are absolutely true in life. Like 2+2=4. There is no need to question this. Everything you have said has no merit whatsoever. I am only abiding in the evidence and your inability to disprove the proof for God an the resurrection of Jesus.

Reasonable Doubt?

Testimony - it requires trust to believe - it is not physical proof but written record - and so has no place in a "perfect proof"

-Fabrication by Paul - (possible motivation) for the purpose of furthering Jesus' message - a plausible alternative

Without first believing in God when considering the proof the Bible's statements do not hold authority or truth by fiat, and are questionable like any other testimony -

Most if not all information regarding Jesus is drawn from the Bible.

Other accounts for an empty tomb

The body was stolen
He didn't die
It is just a story

Proving rather than claiming that there can be no possible physical explanation - "a miracle" - would require absolute knowledge of the physical world - so to does claiming that all physical reality has an attribute of any sort - generally when laws are made in science they are provisonal - The laws of Universal Gravitation - were Universal - until we discovered exceptions to them

claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional

A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.

Yes, you should trust in the written record they believed they saw Jesus resurrected because of so much multiple corroboration.

Fabrication by Paul is not plausible since people don't die for something they know is a lie.

The proof I have given you does not depend on assuming God exists first.

There are 17 early non-Christian sources, but they should not be considered primary sources like the text of the New Testament.

Jesus would be a liar if He didn't die and the disciples could hardly follow a man claiming to be resurrected who could barely walk from all the flogging, his chest pierced and John and the women lying about seeing Jesus die on the cross, or Joseph of Arimathea claiming he put spices on Jesus dead corpse.

There is nothing to indicate the Scriptures are just a story book, as these were real people with real lives. Clement of Rome and Polycarp claimed to have known the Peter and John.

A stolen body doesn't account for the resurrection appearances or the guards protecting the tomb.

There is no known naturalistic law that allows for people to rise from clinical death so when people do rise from a clinical death (there are documented cases) and show they could see things they could not have known if they didn't come out of their bodies, indicates that an after life.

The resurrection of Jesus wasn't claimed to happen all by itself, but Jesus did it, for He is God.

We are not claiming the resurrection is true because they truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Rather, we are claiming the resurrection is true because you can find no naturalistic explanation that fits the data almost all skeptical scholars accept surrounding the events.

Having been raised and schooled in a Christian environment, the question of God's existence has always been of interest to me. In the interest of open dialogue I must admit that I am an agnostic, having never found the argument for believing satisfactory, although recently I have perceived that there is something eternal, unchanging and pervasive – an underlying cosmic order which is very beautiful. I have always been fond of talking about religion, though my friends (most of which are Christians of varying degrees) inevitably become uncomfortable when talk turns to questions of proof, justification or cause for belief in God. You however do not strike me as someone who will be uncomfortable discussing this.
I am quite the opposite. I was born-again when I was 33 years of age and nobody in my family background had anything to do with Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

I do not think such a proof is possible, unless maybe God himself came and announced his retirement.
What makes you think you would recognize Him if He came?

Assumptions
·Cause and effect
·Sin is real
Premise: Sin exists
Premise: Sin decreases with time
Mechanism: “evolving/progression of conscience”
Measure: Violent Crime, historical atrocities examples
Premise: With infinite time sin converges on nothing (i.e. sin does not exist)
Conclusion: Therefore time is not infinite/ eternal
Cause and effect are shown in trillions of causes and effects. If sin was not real then there would be no need for jails. Sin is decreasing with time as we observe the exponential progression of conscience. It is an observable phenomenon. Crime rate and atrocities per capita continue to go down. The convergence is approximating near sinlessness if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as we see how rapidly the exponential progression of conscience has been moving the past six millennia.

Talking of human sins? – Though the universe may/ or may not be eternal humans have not existed for eternity. This is a simple explanation of why this argument is flawed. Since humans are a recent addition to this universe, regardless of the validity of the mechanism suggested human sinfulness cannot be used imply that the universe had a beginning, is eternal, or cyclic in nature – as humans have existed for a comparatively miniscule amount of time. That is to say the domain of your “calculus” graph is grossly exaggerated and so flawed.
True, humans have not existed for eternity, but if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, mathematically humans would have been derived from that past and existed in the approximation to that eternity so mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. There is nothing to support magical cycles; only heat death and the exponential progression of conscience disallows cycles. Cycles are mindless assumptions. We need to look at the evidence which is the evidence of the exponential progression of conscience. Cycles have the attribute of happening out of nothing after heat death occurs, but nature always has a cause.

In this measure sin is considered equivalent and synonymous with violent crime, regardless of whether violent crime is actually increasing or decreasing worldwide. I surmise that you would agree that sin is more inclusive than this. If we consider only the dictates of the ten commandments, it should be apparent that sinfulness is more likely increasing greatly rather than decreasing – in contradiction to the premise that sin decreases with time. Think of coveting, marital infidelity, wars – it may not be that sin has decreased – but sin is no longer considered by many sinful ( think usury and its recent effects), and we have become better at both sinning and the powerful at subjecting the weak – to the point where they do so willingly. The measure of the current level of sinfulness is inadequate and doubtful, as is the contention that the level of sin is decreasing.
Sin is decreasing exponentially and conscience is increasing exponentially. For example, women can vote now this past century. Human sacrifices so prevalent among the nations has ended. Polygamy and slavery are outlawed. Deaths due to war are down per capita. The list goes on and on. The evidence is overwhelming.

The sample size of the violent graph is too small, geographically and temporally to draw these conclusions from it.
The graph (picture not shown) spans 6000 years since the first God-conscious man. That's all the data we have; we have to go with what we got. And we got 13.7 billion years of no heat death yet.

The claim that there is some mechanism by which people’s consciences are becoming more evolved is highly questionable, and seemingly disproved by the fact the mechanism is not working. No proof of the mechanism itself is offered only a vague mish mash of scientific sounding words, and a graph without quantities! One example of past atrocities does not make a proof. Your proof falls back on this supposed progression of conscience so many times yet it is unproven, and undemonstrated.
We don't care about the mechanism, just the fact that it is happening to prove the fact the universe can't always have existed. The exponential progression of conscience is demonstrable proven, and you couldn't overturn the cases given.

Secondly, I will say that sin is not in the same category as physical objects – sin is behavior that we judge to be in violation with moral precepts – regardless of their origin Christian or otherwise. Consider that sin may be seen to be decreasing only because our definition and awareness of sin is waning when compared to the more far reaching, and powerful effects one person can have on others in the modern world.
The same comparative measures across all centuries shows the exponential progression of conscience. The same standards across the board. Therefore, awareness of sin is not waning, but improving.

Slavery still exists. Some People are stilling willing to have slaves if allowed.
On a per capita basis, slavery has decreased.

Assumption: The universe is a thing; time is a thing, universal causality
Premise: Everything has a cause
Premise: The Universe had a beginning (i.e. is not eternal from STEP 1)
Conclusion The Universe had a first cause (read creator)
Conclusion # 2 The only possibility is God/Jesus. – Why?
Preponderance of evidence is overwhelming everything has a cause. The universe must have a beginning because of Step 1. The must have a first cause because of Step 1. Conclusion remains: the uncreated Creator must exist and Jesus is God because none can compare and He proved it by His resurrection.

Since I consider Step #1 flawed it follows that this argument is also flawed
Since you were shown how you couldn't find a flaw in Step 1 it remains unchallenged.

Even assuming that the universe had a beginning, absence of knowledge of that beginning does not logically dictate that the only possibility can be God. Inference from Ignorance is not a form of proof; it is not logical or factual.
Since no other alternative is even fathomable, and humankind across all races and ages worshiped what they called God, the overwhelming conclusion is the uncreated must exist who created intelligently. To hold out for something else is silly. It's like saying you have to be God to know if God exists. You make it impossible to prove God exists with your approach. How is that coming to God with an honest heart?

And so as the argument goes the very first “natural effect” had a cause that could not be natural.
That's correct, because nature can't cause itself.

“Nothing in nature happens by itself” is a way of begging the question, for a supernatural first mover. A logical – simply stating this does not make it true.
Logic dictates if the natural can't be the cause it must be the supernatural. There are only 2 possibilities: natural or supernatural. There is not an extranatural.

Nor does it mean the opposite which you have clearly assumed to be true by stating “the only possibility that exists we can conclude and fits is the uncreated Created who is Jesus since none can compare to Christ.” This is an undeniable flaw. You have stated your conclusion as an unproven premise within your proof – this is a logical flaw, a deal breaker.
The only possibility is the uncaused. No alternative exists. The proof is the natural can't cause itself and Jesus can't resurrect naturally. By you forever being wrong is not breaking the deal, since the deal will be fulfilled by you going to Hell.

If you ask “Who is the creator of the universe?” it is called begging the question, because the question implies without discussion the premise that there is a creator, even so you will find no rational or logical basis for assuming this creator is one in the same as Christian’s biblical God – that is merely wishful thinking and faith, as is assuming the bible is entirely or even mostly inerrant despite translation errors, current changes, known historical copying errors, apocrypha, a compendium of contradictions and the widely differing interpretations of the text.
The creator has been established since nature can't cause itself. We know the Creator is the God of the Bible for none can compare to Christ and Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection. You testify this because you can't disprove the evidences supplied. You're left with wishful thinking that it might not be so, so you can remain gorged in your sin nature without consequences (you hope). Textual criticism makes it a certainty we have the right original documents. No alleged contradictions have not been answered by Christian scholars. 99.5% of all Bibles are the same. That can hardly be construed as wide difference. Current changes to update today's English or other language pose no problems. Apocrypha, adding books to the Bible, can be shown to not fit in with the 66 books.

The Universe is not an object but the set of all objects. A forest is not caused it is simply a collection of trees, it is the trees that are caused – by seeds – then cells – then genetics – then the molecular and atomic and finally quantum level. Respondents will mention evolution at these different hierarchies, and perhaps abiogenesis at the molecular level, and physics at the atomic level. Respondents will argue mentioning quantum physics, because it is currently the best model for explaining the origins and behavior of matter at its most fundamental level – the quantum level. Scientists anticipate that at the most elementary basis matter and forces will be found harmonious or an expression of each other. This has already been partly achieved with through wave-particle duality. Yet in the absence of knowledge scientists will offer only hypothesis, especially in the realm of cosmology which is heavily theoretical, the widely known “Big Bang” hypothesis is currently accepted as the most plausible scientific theory for the long history of the universe – however there is no suggestion of Jesus as a physical cause. It is worth considering that this hypothesis though widely supported might not necessarily be true, and makes no comment on what the universe was like before this moment – only afterwards. Perhaps our universe is cyclic, or matter and anti-matter spontaneously erupts from annihilation into separated pairs, and the universe is in fact an eternal stage. The fact remains- it is not known, assuming you know is just wrong.
Abiogenesis is proven undoable naturalistically/mathematically. We know Jesus is the cause of the universe by proof of His resurrection in what you would expect a long 1500 years of religio-historical context entering into His creation and resurrecting to prove He is God and wants a personal relationship with us and forgives sins to give everlasting life. Whoever doesn't want this gets to have everlasting conscious awareness in Hell, such as yourself after you are resurrected. In layman's terms, you're a bad guy in God's eyes, for you reject the greatest love ever known to man, and God is not far from any of our hearts, so you are without excuse. We have talked about the impossibility of a cyclical universe because heat death and the exponential progression of conscience disallow it. Indeed the universe is eternally existing in the future, but not the past.

40 - Prove It. You Can’t.
Read the Bible's authors in the 66 books.

"why can't God have a creator?" – well really why not. It’s not enough just to say he can’t. To base your reason for thinking otherwise on the bible is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. You can’t believe in God because it says he exists in the bible, and then believe what the bible says because the bible says it is written by God. I don’t understand how people cannot see that as the awful logic it is.
The uncreated is proven because nature can't cause itself. If you want to say there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural (Step 4), then realize this theory fails also still due to the same reason, the exponential progression of conscience and heat death. Remember, the 4 Step Proof never says first God exists, but we come to the realization God exists by the proof of nature.

“Not once has He ever sinned in the 66 books of God's Word.” Is murder a sin, infanticide a sin, impregnation outside of marriage? If you had the power to stop an atrocity with great ease, but chose not to would you consider yourself moral, without sin. If Jesus had the power to prevent his death, is not allowing it a form of suicide.
If God doesn't allow sin, then there would not be free-will. If you can't have the choice to rebel, then you're just a robot. God wants a relationship with free-willed beings, not robots.

No it’s simply because the proof is not perfect – far from it. It fails at being persuasive, encompassing, clear or logical.
But you can't show it is not persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical, and that is why it is persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical. And so the reason you reject the proof God gives when He says you can prove Him in nature is this: “The reason why unregenerates outside the kingdom of heaven can't sense or reason out that these 4 Steps are true is because God has not given it to them to be able to understand.” In other words, you don't come to God with an honest heart. You're being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

No, I do not consider atheism / agnosticism as faith positions, as both are negatively defined, saying only what a person is not, rather than what they are. Positive statements exclude many possibilities, negative statements exclude one specifically.
The evidence is given, so you have no excuse for being an atheist or agnostic. All you have then is Hell. Your faith is certainly blind faith and delusional faith, since it goes contrary to the evidence. Negative or positive, it is still mindless faith.

Whereas faith in Christ is proven.

Agnosticism is not “thinly veiled” atheism but a subtly different perspective. Strong atheists declare that there is no possibility of God/s existing through argument; strong agnostics say that proof either way is not rationally possible. Both are alike in that they declare an absence of belief in God.

Agnostics = no belief
Atheist = no possibility

The difference from believers is that this decision is based on reasoning
It's hardly subtle at all. It is simply saying you don't know either way, whereas atheism is making a definite claim it knows God does not exist. But since the evidence is overwhelming and unchallenged, agnosticism is really just "thinly veiled" atheism. Agnosticism does not say proof is not possible, but rather it does not know presently. When you say proof cannot be known either way, that is neither atheism nor agnosticism. But it is "thinly veiled" atheism, making it impossible to prove God, showing your heart is closed.

Atheism can never be limited to absence of belief for it is a belief there is no God. Similarly, agnosticism is not an absence of belief, for it is believing God might exist if proof could be found. And to take the position there is no way to prove if God exists or doesn't exist is also not absence of belief, for it is a position of belief that there is no way to prove either way. Of course, this goes contrary to what we discover in nature we can prove a great many things an disprove a great many other things.

What you may have seen through our discussions is you are always wrong, for that is the nature of someone going to Hell; that is, when discussing origins and who God is. Think of it this way. You make your world-view in your own image. The universe is a mostly cold and dead place.

Keep trying. Don't give up. It is the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2256) and Minimal Facts Aproach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2222) that remain unchallenged.

Adam

07-21-2009, 06:45 AM

Objective reality has nothing to do with people agreeing about moral judgments - it is a conception of reality as distinct from people’s perceptions and thoughts about it. - i.e. the subjective.

reply-I didn't saying objective reality has anything to do with people agreeing about it; rather, objective morality is observed by people agreeing about.

If objective morality is is outside of objective reality in what way is it objective - this is why I called the phrase an oxymoron - it doesn't make sense.

Since it exists how can objective morality come from a universe prior to sentient life not having objective morality?...Everyone agrees ...they....want..[to not be killed by another].. so that is an objective moral.

What exists? - people agreeing about judgements or desires? Development of agreed upon social mores is explainable through evolution as more social animals emerge if that's what you mean , so are desires - such as wanting to stay alive - I'm not sure I understand what your saying - please clarify? Regardless - I don't think moral judgements necessitate a God.

group hallucinations ...are impossible according to modern psychology
I never suggested a "group hallucination" this is a misreading and a misrepresentation of what i have said.

I think the idea .... sounds "Magical" - your reply- Supernatural.

Yes as the word magic means the same thing as supernatural. Supernatural beleifs/concepts including Resurrection, miracles, God.

As you said

claiming something happens all by itself like magic is delusional? If I had believed that I would admit I was delusional.

But you don't admit that your delusional.

But there are valid reasons to accept at least some things in Scripture such as Paul saying he met with James, Peter and John who testified they all had seen Jesus physically with Paul seeing Jesus objectively.

Maybe some, an account of two people meeting is rather innocuous, proof of the supernatural is not.

nature can't can't cause itself

Still my argument against this remains unanswered - your argument only works if you assume nature needs a cause - outside of nature - i.e. not physical - i.e. supernatural.

That is in your proof of the supernatural - you assumed it's existence - your conclusion.

God is not physical

In what meaningful way can you say something not physical exists - to me "not physical" is the same as saying " not existing".

It's impossible Naturalistically and mathematically based on the laws of the universe.

Do you know "the laws of the universe"?

You are the one demanding you would have to be God to know if God exists. That is indeed absurd

Why is it absurd? by "be God" we mean of course being omniscient of the physcial worlds workings - of science and physics.

In order to prove that no physical cause exists for something - i.e. claim a miracle/magic - You would need to know all physical causes that are possible in order to dismiss them.

I think it is more absurd to claim that since all of our current knowledge points to the fact that existing physical entities and even life has "trillions" of physical causes .....

That there must be some non-physical yet somehow mysteriously existing causes. Why? How?

Why? because somethings just can't be physically caused
Why? because you say everything needs a cause?
Why? because you say I'm "stupid", illogical, it's absurd, I'm going to some place called "hell" if I think that there must obviously be something which does not require a cause if we assume there is a beginning - since otherwise that would result in an infinite regress - which suggests an eternity.

So you conclude there must be a non-physical cause - i.e. a cause that does not physically exist.

And you call it God.....the chief property being - that it's not caused

it is illogical to ask for a cause to that which is uncreated

Why? - Because you said - and I should just leave it at that. The end

This is meant to be your perfect argument....

How can you not see the problem with this, or maybe you do.

Something coming into existence all by itself is magic

it appears nothing would convince you, so that seems closed minded.

It's not that nothing will convince me it's that this argument does not convince me.

Do you think it's possible anything I say could convince you, or are you "close minded" in which case - why challenge anyone to argue about the proof at all, which to me implies you are open to doubt- unless it is a trick/ fabrication to draw people in to believe in something which you consider beneficial for them- sort of noble but mistaken - like my explanation for Paul I would say.

This testimony is data

testimony is not physical data - unless you are examining the method of transmission - but you are speaking about the meaning and claim of the testimony. I don't need to present "naturalistic explanations" beyond saying testimony is unreliable and does not constitute prood . I even went so far as to offer you a plausible alternative of what may have happened - which you reject - illogically with this.

people don't die for something they know is a lie

Something I never claimed to be true - I claimed that as a possible alternative Paul died for something else - The promotion of Christianity.

People don't die for something they know is a lie.
They do, if maintaining the lie results in something worth dying for. You cannot prove it was otherwise, or that this alternative is not plausible.

This is my rational "viable explanation" - resurrection is an unproven story. Unless you can come up with proof that a mistake, or deception is not a possible alternative you must admit that there is reasonable doubt.

Assumptions - Paul existed - I accept, I cannot prove it conclusively and absolutely since I am historically remote, but I accept.

1.Paul was killed for his beliefs
2.Paul believed in resurection
3. Therefore Paul was killed for believing in resurrection

1. I'm not debating it
2. You can't prove it
3. see two

But you might say, Paul said he believed in resurrection - well people say a lot of things - If you choose to trust his words that's fine, but trust of testimony is not equivalent to proof.

an uncreated Creator creating intelligence is creating out of Himself and thus, not by magic.

If your "uncreated Creator" is not physical, that is supernatural i.e. magic
isn't anything created from/out of/by magic = magic?

"Magical" - Supernatural.

I know it is true, because you can't find a naturalistic explanation.

Again the fact that we are ignorant of a physical explanation, does not necessitate a supernatural one - just patience, humility and scientific investigation.

you're being illogical the fact that you are still on your way to Hell.

You can stop saying I'm going to Hell - the fact that you think it exists , based on your desire for it to exist alone is highly offensive, as is your seeming revelry in the idea of people, especially me being tortured at length just becuase I disagree with you. I wish no such torture on you - only thatbyou will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
And that you will Go, and do thou likewise.

It's like you have to be God to know if God exists which is pompous.

Pompous and true...

Churchwork

07-21-2009, 08:29 AM

If objective morality is is outside of objective reality in what way is it objective - this is why I called the phrase an oxymoron - it doesn't make sense.
Why think objective morality is outside objective morality?

What exists? - people agreeing about judgements or desires? Development of agreed upon social mores is explainable through evolution as more social animals emerge if that's what you mean , so are desires - such as wanting to stay alive - I'm not sure I understand what your saying - please clarify? Regardless - I don't think moral judgements necessitate a God.
I didn't say moral judgments, but actual objective morals could not exist without a Creator.

I never suggested a "group hallucination" this is a misreading and a misrepresentation of what i have said.
Since you didn't specify any possible mistakes at this point, I was just ruling out group hallucinations for you which you agree.

Yes as the word magic means the same thing as supernatural. Supernatural beleifs/concepts including Resurrection, miracles, God.
Magic are mere tricks. The supernatural requires assistance from outside of the natural realm.

But you don't admit that your delusional.
Why would I? I have the evidence on my side and do not go beyond what the evidence supplies.

Maybe some, an account of two people meeting is rather innocuous, proof of the supernatural is not.
God uses the every day to prove His existence which you would expect since what other forum do you have to work with? Address the fact they truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead and went to their deaths for it. You seem unable to account for it with your naturalistic attempts.

Still my argument against this remains unanswered - your argument only works if you assume nature needs a cause - outside of nature - i.e. not physical - i.e. supernatural. That is in your proof of the supernatural - you assumed it's existence - your conclusion.
Preponderance of evidence is what we are working with, not mere assumptions, which shows us, therefore, nature requires a cause, that which is uncreated. You have been unable to overturn the preponderance of cause and effects in nature.

In what meaningful way can you say something not physical exists - to me "not physical" is the same as saying " not existing".
Since the physical can't be the ultimate cause it must be non-physical even outside time itself.

Do you know "the laws of the universe"?
Yes we know many constants and quantities in the universe. These constants if off just a minuscule amount, the universe could not exist. Such fine-tuning requires an intelligent designer.

Why is it absurd? by "be God" we mean of course being omniscient of the physical worlds workings - of science and physics.
It is an unreasonable demand, since it is a proclamation you will accept nothing as evidence for God's existence and it relies on the assumption it is possible to know everything when it is impossible for you to know all things. This is why Hell is created, because you provide no means for God to enter your heart.

In order to prove that no physical cause exists for something - i.e. claim a miracle/magic - You would need to know all physical causes that are possible in order to dismiss them.
All you need to know is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects. We have that now!

I think it is more absurd to claim that since all of our current knowledge points to the fact that existing physical entities and even life has "trillions" of physical causes .....
Therefore, nature always requires a cause and can't come from nothing (Step 2).

That there must be some non-physical yet somehow mysteriously existing causes. Why? How?
Since the physical can't be the cause because it requires a cause and the universe can't always have been existing. The only available possibility is the uncreated must be the cause.

Why? because somethings just can't be physically caused
Why? because you say everything needs a cause?
Why? because you say I'm "stupid", illogical, it's absurd, I'm going to some place called "hell" if I think that there must obviously be something which does not require a cause if we assume there is a beginning - since otherwise that would result in an infinite regress - which suggests an eternity.

The preponderance of evidence tells us nature needs a cause and there can't be an infinite regress because there would be heat death and we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. So the uncreated exists. And the reason you reject Jesus being God even though His resurrection is proven is because your are disobedient and have an independency towards God even hostility. If you want to remain that way which will be decided in this life, then you will be resurrected for Hell to be given your hearts desire to be eternally separated from God.

So you conclude there must be a non-physical cause - i.e. a cause that does not physically exist. And you call it God.....the chief property being - that it's not caused
That's correct.

Why? - Because you said - and I should just leave it at that. The end
This is meant to be your perfect argument....
How can you not see the problem with this, or maybe you do.

Because to look for a cause to that which is uncaused is self-contradictory. The only problem here is one who contradicts himself.

It's not that nothing will convince me it's that this argument does not convince me. Do you think it's possible anything I say could convince you, or are you "close minded"
God said in His word, this is the number one proof of His existence and that nothing is more damning to you. Whether you find it convincing or not, what matters is you can't disprove it. If you could prove something happens all by itself you could disprove the uncreated. Or if you could prove an infinite regress you could also disprove the uncreated. But you could do neither.

testimony is not physical data - unless you are examining the method of transmission - but you are speaking about the meaning and claim of the testimony. I don't need to present "naturalistic explanations" beyond saying testimony is unreliable and does not constitute prood . I even went so far as to offer you a plausible alternative of what may have happened - which you reject - illogically with this.

Your alternative was shown implausible. You have no reason to think the testimony is unreliable and every reason to think it is reliable. There can be no better proof than eyewitness testimony. It seems to me you rule out any allowance for any kind of evidence which shows your mind is closed. Your position is unfalsifiable so therefore, your stance must be wrong.

Something I never claimed to be true - I claimed that as a possible alternative Paul died for something else - The promotion of Christianity.
Christianity would not exist without the eyewitness accounts for the resurrection since that is what Christianity is founded on. You can't separate them. The documentation supports they died for their eyewitness claims. What documentation do you have to show otherwise?

They do, if maintaining the lie results in something worth dying for. You cannot prove it was otherwise, or that this alternative is not plausible.
You don't seem to be able to cite any historical instances of people willingly going to their deaths as martyrs, not recanting what they knew was a lie. Humans don't do that. Humans are self-preserving.

This is my rational "viable explanation" - resurrection is an unproven story. Unless you can come up with proof that a mistake, or deception is not a possible alternative you must admit that there is reasonable doubt.
All known naturalistic explanations or mistakes fail to account for the data surrounding the resurrection, so this is the proof Jesus was resurrected. There is no doubt about this.

Assumptions - Paul existed - I accept, I cannot prove it conclusively and absolutely since I am historically remote, but I accept.

1.Paul was killed for his beliefs
2.Paul believed in resurection
3. Therefore Paul was killed for believing in resurrection

1. I'm not debating it
2. You can't prove it
3. see two

I think the reason there are no skeptical scholars who claim Paul didn't exist because his fingerprint is in so many places in having set up so many churches and had contact with so many people through the Scriptures.

Church fathers state Paul died in 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions. Luke talks about Paul. Paul testifies how he came to see and believe in Christ and the Apostles whom he met. His talks about the resurrection so much, he clearly believes in it. It's as proven as anything in antiquity. Nobody in their right mind based on all the evidence would challenge this fact.

I think it would help you if you read your Bible, because you wouldn't be having issues with this stuff when you see what is so apparently clear.

But you might say, Paul said he believed in resurrection - well people say a lot of things - If you choose to trust his words that's fine, but trust of testimony is not equivalent to proof.
He died for this claim. People don't die for something they know is a lie. That goes against our very human nature to survive.

If your "uncreated Creator" is not physical, that is supernatural i.e. magic isn't anything created from/out of/by magic = magic?

Two senses of magic can be used. One is just simple human tricks. The other is puff the magic dragon the universe popped into existence all by itself. That wouldn't be supernatural because it has no supernatural agent.

Again the fact that we are ignorant of a physical explanation, does not necessitate a supernatural one - just patience, humility and scientific investigation.
If you are holding out for an eternity of the past of physical causes then you are claiming the universe always existed, but that's impossible since we would have experienced heat death and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does due to the exponential progression of conscience (Step 1). Know this fact, patiently waiting for a lie is false humility and ultimately, delusional. Again, God has a place for such people.

You can stop saying I'm going to Hell - the fact that you think it exists , based on your desire for it to exist alone is highly offensive, as is your seeming revelry in the idea of people, especially me being tortured at length just becuase I disagree with you. I wish no such torture on you - only thatbyou will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
And that you will Go, and do thou likewise.

It does give me a certain comfort knowing you will spend an eternity in Hell, just as it would for a woman who was raped knows her attacker is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Hell is proven, because obviously God can't let you be with those who love Him. Since you have to go some place, this proves Hell's existence. You're equating human physical torture to the kind of torture you will spend in eternity. I think that is an inaccurate comparison and naive. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the spiritual realm. One has fire that goes out. The other has fire that never stops burning. It's the fire of judgment of your choice to be eternally separated from your Creator. Nothing could be more asinine! Since you will reject Jesus Christ for eternity, in the same way I would not want to let that rapist out of jail, because he won't change his ways. God is perfectly justified in sending you to Hell and never let you out. You're a bad guy.

Pompous and true...
Any position that is pompous is false. And to claim you have to be God is mindless since obviously you didn't cause your own existence.

Churchwork

07-21-2009, 08:40 AM

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jer. 29.13). If you don't search God with all your heart, that explains why you haven't found Him yet. "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)

Let's summarize:
1) Can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because there would be heat death, and due to the exponential progression of conscience mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does.
2) Preponderance of evidence of causes shows nature requires a cause, but since nature can't cause itself, the only known possibility is the uncaused must exist.
3) Don't misrepresent God of the Bible for then you would be arguing against something else.
4) There can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects outside the natural for the same reasons given in Step 1, for the same conditions still apply.

Adam

07-21-2009, 10:13 AM

You gave me an infraction for formatting whilst I was writing a post and now It's lost : ( If you don't want to talk anymore just say so.

Adam

07-21-2009, 10:44 AM

Do not give me infractions to stifle discussions for among other things spelling mistakes, and being discourteous- I am frequently telling you that you will go to Hell?

If our discussion is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. Don't do it through infractions.

1. Don't be a false accuser!For example, accusing people of copying and pasting or plagiarizing on discussion forums as an excuse to avoid the issue is utterly vain and shallow.

3. Show extra care.

4. No doubletalk. Don't contradict yourself.

5. Overassuming.

6. Respond specifically. When discussing with others, respond directly, specifically and courteously,repetitive self-declarations expose the weakness of an argument in trying to deflect and circumvent the issue

7. Stop being antiApostle.

8. Repent before rejoining or posting again

9. No frivolousness

10. Be cordial.

To me the words supernatural and magic are equivalent - or as you would put it the supernatural is "thinly veiled" magic - as both are explanations that claim to be other than physical explanations.

How does the first replicating cell come into being when there has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe since the big bang?

This is a fairly good summary of how this argument is used incorrectly
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
My point again is obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" as evidenced by the fact that cells exist. Or as you might say

since there are trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence....Complex chemistry does arise from natural causes.
I myself do not know the specifics of how, but it's worth learning.

It is also illogical to assume if there was one last thing that man didn't know to hold out for it possibly being proof the universe happened all by itself or always existed, because that goes against all odds. It's like you are the worst gambler every known to man.

I haven't laid down my chips on a number - and if i did I'd make sure the number was in the game.

The universe can't account for itself and we know it couldn't have always existed, because of heat death and the exponential progression of conscience.

The universe doesn't need to "account for itself", you think it couldn't have always existed - because of "heat death" isn't that meant to be a possible end through entropy - what if there was a mechanism by which it was reversed that you're not aware of? the exponential progression of conscience is a silly idea unrelated physics.

you are still on your way to Hell.

As you have seen, I have responded to all your attempts. Each one has failed....the same hostility and independency Adam had at the fall.

Your responses and dismissals have been flawed - just because you dismiss them does not make my observations false.

people strong reason to believe you are going to Hell.

Everything you have said has no merit whatsoever. I am only abiding in the evidence and your inability to disprove the proof for God an the resurrection of Jesus.

The things i have said have at least as much merit as your pronouncements. I shown you reasons to doubt the proof and resurrection- whether you choose to abide by it is immaterial to the truth.

Yes, you should trust in the written record they believed they saw Jesus resurrected

If it was proof you would not require trust.

The proof I have given you does not depend on assuming God exists first.

It requires you to believe in resurrection - which you justify through God.
You supposedly prove eternity - by talking about morals - which you believe exist because of God.

The resurrection of Jesus wasn't claimed to happen all by itself, but Jesus did it, for He is God.

can you see the circle reasoning above?

There is nothing to indicate the Scriptures are just a story book, as these were real people with real lives.

Is it not a story, in a book? Paul existed - I agreed
[
QUOTE]
A stolen body doesn't account for the resurrection appearances or the guards protecting the tomb.[/QUOTE]

And your basing this trusting testimony?

There is no known naturalistic law that allows for people to rise from clinical death
Yes there is - it's called CPR : )

We are not claiming the resurrection is true because they truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Rather, we are claiming the resurrection is true because you can find no naturalistic explanation that fits the data

The data is something other than people supposedly seeing it, or believing it on hearsay?
Good, the resurrection isn't true because it didn't happen - that's the only plausible natural explanation.

What makes you think you would recognize Him if He came?

Well I imagine if you were God you would think of something convincing, a big flying bearded giant with magic tricks, that knows everything - might be a good start for convincing people.

Cause and effect are shown in trillions of causes and effects. If sin was not real then there would be no need for jails. Sin is decreasing with time as we observe the exponential progression of conscience. It is an observable phenomenon. Crime rate and atrocities per capita continue to go down. The convergence is approximating near sinlessness if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as we see how rapidly the exponential progression of conscience has been moving the past six millennia.

And after your "heat death" there will be zero sins therefore proving your theory. How sinful was the universe when humans didn't exist?

True, humans have not existed for eternity

That graph doesn't seem exponential anymore does it?

Cycles have the attribute of happening out of nothing

What does "progression of conscience" happen out of, what causes it do you think?

The graph (picture not shown) spans 6000 years since the first God-conscious man. That's all the data we have; we have to go with what we got.

Hang on did you just say GOD is in Step 1 of the Proof.....

We don't care about the mechanism

Well obviously if the mechanism is also God, that's a fairly large logical flaw - one I doubt even you could dismiss....don't pretend you don't know why.

Maybe you can think of another way of justifying why the universe isn't eternal - but the Proof would remain flawed.

Preponderance of evidence is overwhelming everything has a cause.

Lots of things have causes, therefore everything has a cause - No.

Is there a preponderance of evidence for resurrection or "an uncreated creator" - No.
What's your evidence that this creator wasn't created "supernaturally" - besides stating it's impossible. - Nothing.

Step 1 it remains flawed. Step 2 remains illogical.

Since no other alternative is even fathomable

I can "fathom" alternatives - you should be able to as well.

humankind across all races and ages worshiped what they called God

No, and even if they did everyone believing something does not make it true. Like Christians believing the earth the center of the universe.

To hold out for something else is silly. It's like saying you have to be God to know if God exists. You make it impossible to prove God exists with your approach. How is that coming to God with an honest heart?

Something else - like the truth? or being honest enough to admit when we don't know everything.

It is not an approach, you can call it arrogant or pompous but you have not once told me why it's untrue, yet you agree it makes proof of God impossible - which makes you an agnostic.

How is that coming to God with an honest heart?

It's not about coming to God - it's just about being honest.

Logic dictates if the natural can't be the cause it must be the supernatural. There are only 2 possibilities: natural or supernatural.

And so one would tend to assume there is a facet of nature that is unknown, or not understood - not outside of all physical things - a ridiculous, meaningless, illogical assumption.

No alternative exists.

There are some alternative explanations even so, our knowledge and objective reality are separate - I think you will agree with this point - so even the absence of an alternative explanation - does not rule out the possibility of one.

The proof is the natural can't cause itself and Jesus can't resurrect naturally. By you forever being wrong is not breaking the deal, since the deal will be fulfilled by you going to Hell.

Maybe you are going to my version of Hell - I call it irrationality - it makes you a prisoner in your own mind.

"you can't disprove the evidences supplied."

Can, have, and will continue too. I still don't know how you can consider it an impossibilty if you are being reasonable.

Textual criticism makes it a certainty we have the right original documents. No alleged contradictions have not been answered by Christian scholars. 99.5% of all Bibles are the same. That can hardly be construed as wide difference. Current changes to update today's English or other language pose no problems. Apocrypha, adding books to the Bible, can be shown to not fit in with the 66 books.

One of many lists you can find simply by searching for "biblical contradictions"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

How do Christian scholars answer such contradictions?
It may not be a wide difference - but it is a difference - how do you choose which one is right?
Who chooses which books are canonical?

Abiogenesis is proven undoable naturalistically
/mathematically
No, basic chemical "life" has been created in labs.

Whoever doesn't want this gets to have everlasting conscious awareness in Hell, such as yourself after you are resurrected. In layman's terms, you're a bad guy in God's eyes, for you reject the greatest love ever known to man, and God is not far from any of our hearts, so you are without excuse.

Only if you're correct, there is no reason to believe you are. so your self aggrandising statements don't bother me.

Prove it. Actually don't it's irrelevant to our discussion.

[QUOTE]
The uncreated is proven because nature can't cause itself.

Prove It - You have not, and cannot.

we come to the realization God exists by the proof of nature.

Sure you did.....I believe you.....

But you can't show it is not persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical, and that is why it is persuasive, encompassing, clear and logical.

My ability or inability to communicate does not change what is true - I have shown it is illogical, and so unpersuasive. It also does not encompass proof of the premises assumed - or you would not have required further explanation - you would simply refer back to the proof.

The evidence is given, so you have no excuse for being an atheist or agnostic.... All you have then is Hell.

Your "evidence" isn't evidence - that is my excuse, and quiet a good one.

Your continued insistence that your belief is rational, rather than based on blind faith - the type where you deny it is faith? is aptly explained by yourself

Your faith is certainly blind faith and delusional faith, since it goes contrary to the evidence. Negative or positive, it is still mindless faith.

Atheism denies the possibility of God/s or the supernatural, through reasoned argument.

Agnostics claim that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God/d either way because they are outside the domain logic and the physical world.

See how these words have distinct meanings?

Both are the same in that they do not claim to be able to prove God - which is your claim as what would be called an evidentialist

- as opposed to Fideists - who may be both believers by choice and agnostics.

What you may have seen through our discussions is you are always wrong, for that is the nature of someone going to Hell; that is, when discussing origins and who God is. Think of it this way. You make your world-view in your own image. The universe is a mostly cold and dead place.

Am I cold and dead - by your logic? : )

If you don't search God with all your heart

I didn't think this was about me converting to Christianity - but meeting your challenge to find fault with the proof.

Adam

07-21-2009, 10:51 AM

I give you 5 infractions - tell me how comparing me to a rapist, and saying i deserve to be tortured forever because I disagree with you is courteous, and you think I'm the bad guy - what sort of Christian are you....if you can't see how that's wrong.....

It does give me a certain comfort knowing you will spend an eternity in Hell, just as it would for a woman who was raped knows her attacker is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Hell is proven, because obviously God can't let you be with those who love Him. Since you have to go some place, this proves Hell's existence. You're equating human physical torture to the kind of torture you will spend in eternity. I think that is an inaccurate comparison and naive. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the spiritual realm. One has fire that goes out. The other has fire that never stops burning. It's the fire of judgment of your choice to be eternally separated from your Creator. Nothing could be more asinine! Since you will reject Jesus Christ for eternity, in the same way I would not want to let that rapist out of jail, because he won't change his ways. God is perfectly justified in sending you to Hell and never let you out. You're a bad guy.

Churchwork

07-21-2009, 08:03 PM

I have been using a spell checker. Do not give me infractions for things you are guilty of too - it's not fair [pm]. You gave me an infraction for formatting whilst I was writing a post and now It's lost : ( If you don't want to talk anymore just say so.
I don't have that many spelling mistakes as I use the spell checker.

I do want you to talk, why think otherwise? May you come to Christ so you won't go to Hell, but receive the eternal blessings God wants you to have.

There is no reason why you should lose a post except your own carelessness. I didn't remove any of your posts, so you're just sinning bearing false witness. Giving you an infraction doesn't cause a problem, for you should always copy your post before sending it because it could time out or like you said, you could get an infraction if you had done something wrong.

How about you stop yelling that I'm going to Hell - is that what you consider conscientious and thoughtful

Hell is part of the gospel. Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone else. Are you accusing Him of being a liar? He created you. This is very conscientious and thoughtful. To say nothing about it is unconscientious and unthoughtful, and to try to prevent it is shutting your mind down so you can engorge in your sin nature and deny the atonement, for forgiveness of sins so God can reconcile you back to Him and so you can come to God with a new heart and a new spirit and a cleansed conscience.

You most certainly are going to Hell. It is a reflection of your character and the kind of person you are. You would rather be eternally separated from God. So be it. That is your choice.

Churchwork

07-21-2009, 08:10 PM

I give you 5 infractions - tell me how comparing me to a rapist, and saying i deserve to be tortured forever because I disagree with you is courteous, and you think I'm the bad guy - what sort of Christian are you....if you can't see how that's wrong.....
I have just told you the truth, my courtesy to you. You are a bad guy. You are going to spend an eternity in Hell because that is what you want. You send yourself there. Hypothetically, if Hitler was born-again (which he is not, of course), he would be considered a better person than you, because he would have accepted the loving sacrifice to reconcile him back to God. No matter how sinful a person is they can still be saved if they are willing, before they leave their body of flesh and blood. That is how immense God is. But you stand their pompously, so proud and think you are a better than a rapist even though you are both going to spend an eternity in Hell, for calling Jesus and the eyewitness Apostles liars when you have no reason for doing so other than your own disobedience, independency and hostility towards your Creator. God is eternally greater than you and there must be an eternal solution to your sickness which only God Himself can satisfy in His only begotten Son. Jesus takes all your sins and all the sins of the world upon Himself. He created you and wants a relationship with you, but you cut Him as though you kill Him all over again. This really reflects upon the kind of person you are. I am just glad I don't have to spend an eternity with someone like you.

Praise the Lord! That is how loving God is!

Churchwork

07-21-2009, 11:53 PM

Do not give me infractions to stifle discussions for among other things spelling mistakes, and being discourteous- I am frequently telling you that you will go to Hell?When you had that many spelling mistakes it stifles the discussion which is discourteous, just like I had to give an infraction again, because in this thread you posted, your quote boxes are all messed up. Stop being in such a rush. Why be in such a rush, after all, you are going to spend an eternity in Hell? The flesh is in such a rush, not realizing that it must die on the cross with Christ to not give Satan anything to work through in you. God wants your old man to die on the cross so you have the power to put to naught the deeds of your flesh. But you are unwilling as you cling desperately to that flesh: the sin of your body and self of the soul.

If our discussion is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. Don't do it through infractions.
Infractions are give for the sole reason the infraction was given for; don't try to make it into something else because of your own negligence. That's immature. As you can see through these forums, I engage the discussion and continue to do so. It sounds perhaps like you are projecting your own uncomfortableness because you are not standing on solid ground and are unable to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach for Jesus being God.

1. Don't be a false accuser!For example, accusing people of copying and pasting or plagiarizing on discussion forums as an excuse to avoid the issue is utterly vain and shallow.

3. Show extra care.

4. No doubletalk. Don't contradict yourself.

5. Overassuming.

6. Respond specifically. When discussing with others, respond directly, specifically and courteously,repetitive self-declarations expose the weakness of an argument in trying to deflect and circumvent the issue

7. Stop being antiApostle.

8. Repent before rejoining or posting again

9. No frivolousness

10. Be cordial.
Amen. These are valid infractions. What's the problem?

To me the words supernatural and magic are equivalent - or as you would put it the supernatural is "thinly veiled" magic - as both are explanations that claim to be other than physical explanations.
Where did I say supernatural is thinly veiled magic? That's sinning bearing false witness. I said agnosticism is thinly veiled atheism since the proof is given God exists and you can't overturn it in your own mind. You need to get a conscience and stop sinning this sin. Magic is a physical explanation, because it is just a trick. Whereas supernatural of the kind we are speak of, is the uncreated Creator. It's not that hard to understand.

This is a fairly good summary of how this argument is used incorrectly
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
My point again is obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" as evidenced by the fact that cells exist. Or as you might say
You're still missing the point. Humans do not know how to bring about this first single-celled replicating organism and mathematically no matter how you mix the stirring pot of all the elements of the universe, the probability is zero. Therefore, it requires a divine intervention. Cells existing is not evidence that nature did it all by itself. That is your mindless assumption and goes contrary to the evidence of all the interatomic interactions that have ever existed which could not bring out the simplest single-celled life form that could begin replicating. Think about that. What great faith you have, but faith that is without any foundation. The statistical improbability still remains a fact no matter how simple the life form is, it still cannot happen based on all math calculations we know of. All things have a cause and effect which this writer attests to, so nothing is really random. Therefore, he is admitting all things in nature have a cause, so the universe can't cause itself or come into being from nothing. Therefore, the cause must be that which is uncaused. Taking it all in a big stirring pot and letting it do what it wants, still it can't bring together the simplest life form.

I myself do not know the specifics of how, but it's worth learning.
What matters is mathematically, man will never know how to create the first single-celled replicating living organism, as there are some things God reserves for Himself. Even if man could, it was at the hand of man's intelligence, showing an intelligent designer is required, since these elements can't come together on their own to create the first single celled organism. No matter how you look at it, you lose. You are going to Hell.

I haven't laid down my chips on a number - and if i did I'd make sure the number was in the game.
Oh but you have laid down your chips on a number and that chip is you have to be God to know if God exists. That's your claim. Even if the number were in the game, you would have no reason to bet on it, because of the preponderance of evidence when you spin the wheel, you will likely not land on that number, but trillions of other numbers which show cause and effect in nature. You should go with the evidence if you were honest with yourself. It seems to me your sole purpose is to disprove God come Hell or Highwater. So be it. Do you have issues with your parents, because you said you were raised in a Christian family? Can we talk about what exactly your parents teach and what they consider to be Christianity and how they have treated you with their faith? I believe that is the real issue.

The universe doesn't need to "account for itself", you think it couldn't have always existed - because of "heat death" isn't that meant to be a possible end through entropy - what if there was a mechanism by which it was reversed that you're not aware of? the exponential progression of conscience is a silly idea unrelated physics.
The universe does have to account for itself, for if you are willing to investigate abiogenesis (which has been proven false) why do you shut your mind down to the accountability of the universe? Seems like a doublestandard. There is no end in entropy, just dissipation. Scientists are firmly agreed there is only exponential expansion and no implosion. The dark energy is pushing out the dark matter and matter at a faster rate than they are gravitating in. The is universally accepted. Plus, the cycles theory is self-contradictory because it assumes an eternity of the past of cycles, so you worship an idol of cycles, but don't ask yourself where the cycles come from, for how can they just pop into existence all by themselves? So the evidence remains, heat death and the exponential progression of conscience disallow an eternity of the past of cause and effects. This is the related evidence. Don't shut your mind down to it.

Your responses and dismissals have been flawed - just because you dismiss them does not make my observations false.
If they are flawed then repeat the flaw. Don't be coy. When I respond I don't just dismiss, but show you how your idea is false. Please respond in kind instead of being coy. Your coyness exposes the weakness of your argument so you have to make claims without backing them up.

The things i have said have at least as much merit as your pronouncements. I shown you reasons to doubt the proof and resurrection- whether you choose to abide by it is immaterial to the truth.
Nothing you have said has any merit. Your points fall flat on their head every time. Your attempt at doubt are shown logically invalid. Always read my immediate response to each of your issues.

If it was proof you would not require trust.
You do require trust because the proof is so strong. You should trust the evidence. Especially when you have nothing to counter that evidence. And that evidence shows us you are going to Hell. I trust it, because I can't disprove the proof just as you can't. We both fall prey to the evidence.

It requires you to believe in resurrection - which you justify through God.
You supposedly prove eternity - by talking about morals - which you believe exist because of God.
The resurrection comes from the evidence. The resurrection leads to the conclusion God exists just as the fact that nature can't cause itself shows us the uncreated exists.

You are getting the cart before the horse. Because we know objective morals exist and objective morals can't exist without an objective source and nature itself is void of objective morals; therefore, the source is God who has perfect objective morality. There are no other candidates.

can you see the circle reasoning above?
No, you don't show it. Since the resurrection occurred and it can't happen naturally, therefore, it was achieved supernaturally, leading to believe in God who is supernaturally uncaused. This is not complicated. A young child can know God exists, for He is not far from any of our hearts.

Is it not a story, in a book? Paul existed - I agreed
These are real people living real lives in real events. It's not a story. Why think so? Your assumptions are brutal and they are killing. No scholar I know of uses your approach.

And your basing this trusting testimony?Yes. But for a reason. The multiple corroboration of people saying they believed in seeing Jesus resurrected physically and dying for that claim is trustworthy. That's why almost all skeptical scholars agree the disciples at the very least truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. Not that they actually did, but they believed they did. Now you have to find a naturalistic explanation, and since you can't find any, you should give your life to Christ, because that is the overwhelming implication.

Yes there is - it's called CPR : )CPR doesn't bring a person back to life. When the brain is dead it is dead. No amount of blood flow can getting it functioning again. It's like cutting off your arms and asking you to wave your arms. It's impossible naturalistically.

The data is something other than people supposedly seeing it, or believing it on hearsay? Good, the resurrection isn't true because it didn't happen - that's the only plausible natural explanation.
The data is people don't die for something they know to be a lie, so they truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. It is not hearsay, but they themselves wrote they saw Jesus alive from the dead in multiple different group settings, multiply attested. Saying it didn't happen doesn't explain what they said they saw. I mentioned group hallucinations being impossible because modern psychology says no such thing has ever been recorded in human history.

Well I imagine if you were God you would think of something convincing, a big flying bearded giant with magic tricks, that knows everything - might be a good start for convincing people.
That seems goofy. I would be more inclined to think such a thing is an evil entity, but that makes sense that you would accept it as being God, because you worship Satan. Satan has been around millions if not billions of years, so he certainly could give the appearance he knows everything. Plus, you admit he is only using magical tricks which depend on natural laws. Man can do magic tricks. Your very best suggestion, therefore, fails. I propose that nothing would convince to accept the One True God which is why you are going to Hell. You're a bad guy. God will let you have your way, to spend an eternity in Hell. Your wish is your command.

And after your "heat death" there will be zero sins therefore proving your theory. How sinful was the universe when humans didn't exist?
Sinfulness requires a conscience. The universe doesn't have a conscience. It is simply matter without sentient thinking. Though I agree heat death would remove sins if it removed all human life, I am not claiming heat death exists, only that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects heat death would have occurred by now. So you are mixing proofs inaccurately. How absurd the atheist arguments get in rationalizing their assumptions. It just goes to show you can rationalize anything, but it just looks goofier and goofier without giving into the evidence. Sin begets sin.

That graph doesn't seem exponential anymore does it?The general trend is still exponential. Don't get caught up in the noise.

What does "progression of conscience" happen out of, what causes it do you think?
God's sufficient enabling grace towards His plan in mind. Satan's goes in completely the opposite direction.

Hang on did you just say GOD is in Step 1 of the Proof.....God is proven in Step of the Proof, yes.

Well obviously if the mechanism is also God, that's a fairly large logical flaw - one I doubt even you could dismiss....don't pretend you don't know why. Maybe you can think of another way of justifying why the universe isn't eternal - but the Proof would remain flawed.
I know why. Because God wants the sinless New City and New Earth with His people as pillars of the New City. He will be the center of the New City-as God and the Lamb and we shall see His one face. No need for a temple because God and the Lamb will be the temple. Know the exponential progression of conscience is true even though you don't understand the mechanism God uses. So the proof remains unchallenged.

Lots of things have causes, therefore everything has a cause - No.

Is there a preponderance of evidence for resurrection or "an uncreated creator" - No.
What's your evidence that this creator wasn't created "supernaturally" - besides stating it's impossible. - Nothing.

Step 1 it remains flawed. Step 2 remains illogical.
The preponderance of evidence is trillions of things have a cause, there is no evidence for something without a cause in nature; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude all things in nature require a cause like that guy in that link you gave said. You are not agreeing with your fellow atheists.

The evidence for the uncreated created is perfect, that nothing in nature can happen all by itself. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection, you admit Jesus is God.

Step 4 addresses your concern of gods creating gods, for Step 1 still applies, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does and there would be heat death.

Ergo, Step 1 & 2 remain unchallenged, as well as Step 4.

I can "fathom" alternatives - you should be able to as well.I can't nor have you been able to either. Surely, you would have done so by now if you could. Your coyness exposes you got nothing.

No, and even if they did everyone believing something does not make it true. Like Christians believing the earth the center of the universe.The common human condition through the millennia of believing in what they call God should cause you to give consideration. The Bible doesn't teach anything about the center of the universe as most people did when it was written. Rather the Bible tells of a guy in a ship looking off across the horizon could see the curvature of the earth, similar to when you stand at the top of a building looking across the landscape it does have curvature. As the ship goes across the ocean, objects get cut off.

Something else - like the truth? or being honest enough to admit when we don't know everything. It is not an approach, you can call it arrogant or pompous but you have not once told me why it's untrue, yet you agree it makes proof of God impossible - which makes you an agnostic.We don't need to know everything to know God exists, otherwise you would have to be God, and that is a mindless arrogant stance to take. It's pompous false humility. Even science doesn't do science that way. Your theory is untrue because you are claiming you have to be God to know if God exists, but obviously, you are not God. Have you always existed? Do you have awareness you always existed? Of course not. To claim so, would indicate your pompous narcissism. But that is exactly what you are holding out for. Since I believe the preponderance of evidence (trillions and trillions and trillions of causes) is a final telling, nothing could convince me God doesn't exist. I believe if man lived a trillion years more still as man approached the knowledge of eternity (which he could never ultimately have), still he would never be able to prove something happened all by itself or the universe always existed (due to heat death and exponential progression of conscience). All I am saying is if you could you could disprove God, but since you can't and the evidence is so overwhelming, it's a done deal! And so this is how I know you are going to Hell.

It's not about coming to God - it's just about being honest.Since God is fully proven, an honest heart entails coming to God.

And so one would tend to assume there is a facet of nature that is unknown, or not understood - not outside of all physical things - a ridiculous, meaningless, illogical assumption.There is always something in nature that is unknown, but everything in nature is nature always presenting a cause. That's all we have evidence for, so to hold out for something else you don't even know what it is, is being mindless. Let the evidence guide you, not your fanciful vague projections. Since nature can't cause itself, the cause is uncaused. That's why the leading and most published Atheist of the 20th century, Antony Flew, could no longer hold to Atheism. He is now a theist. It is morally bankrupt. Gary R. Habermas convinced him.

There are some alternative explanations even so, our knowledge and objective reality are separate - I think you will agree with this point - so even the absence of an alternative explanation - does not rule out the possibility of one.
Our knowledge is part of objective reality. You can say to yourself, I think therefore I am. You objectively exist. You've presented no alternative explanations. You're just being coy at this point which is mindless. That is the nature of atheism. It is for dullards. A reasoned person does not waste his life hoping for something else contrary to the evidence. Rather, he goes with the evidence, belief in God and Jesus is God for salvation and eternal life, and continues to learn about things as a new creation of God.

Maybe you are going to my version of Hell - I call it irrationality - it makes you a prisoner in your own mind.
Since you couldn't show any irrationality on my part, that must mean you are being irrational, and that is part of your existence in Hell for eternity calling Jesus a liar and God a liar without any evidence for your claim. That is insanity! I would not wish this upon my worse enemy. What a horrible and unpleasant existence that you have a foretaste of even now. Your heaven is "my" which has been proven false. To Christians it is Hell.

Can, have, and will continue too. I still don't know how you can consider it an impossibilty if you are being reasonable.Where? Reasonably you could not counter the evidence.

One of many lists you can find simply by searching for "biblical contradictions"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Yes, we can talk about alleged consistencies, which scholars have answered all of them to show there are no inconsistencies, but remember the proof I am using, the Minimal Facts Approach which does not depend on the inerrancy of the Scriptures, but treats it as any other historical text to see using historical requirements what facts we can glean from it.

How do Christian scholars answer such contradictions?
It may not be a wide difference - but it is a difference - how do you choose which one is right?
Who chooses which books are canonical?
When the scholar answers an alleged contradiction, if it is feasible, you must give him the benefit of the doubt. Since the Christian has the Holy Spirit and you have the evil spirit, you would have to concede his logical explanation since it fits and is plausible. The Holy Spirit chooses the 66 books, but man just abides in that proof and can show why other books don't belong. Before you allege a contradiction, if you don't find out what Christian scholars say about it, then you didn't do your homework, like that author did in that link you provided since he doesn't state the Christian response. So he is unthinking.

No, basic chemical "life" has been created in labs.It's not the case at all. You probably just heard a rumor. Scientists still can't create a single celled replicating life out of raw materials. If it was done it would be the greatest discovery of all time and it would be on the news, man can create life from raw materials and replicate it to create human beings with a spirit, soul and body. You don't appreciate how mindless your assumptions are.

Only if you're correct, there is no reason to believe you are. so your self aggrandising statements don't bother me.Aren't your statements self-aggrandising when you say there is no reason to believe when you haven't found a way to overturn the fact that nature always has a cause? And you still can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the resurrection claims. I have told you the truth what the evidence is, so how is that self-aggrandising?

Prove it. Actually don't it's irrelevant to our discussion.At this point I realize I have to give you infractions because you keep saying to prove it after the proof is given and you don't respond to the proof, but just keep saying to prove it. That's mindless belligerency. You can't ask me to prove the proof. The proof is the proof. The proof is relevant. It is the proof. Don't try to be couth for it shows you are desperate.

Prove It - You have not, and cannot.It was proven with trillions of causes and you can't find one thing without a cause in nature. The odds are so overwhelming against you, it's like you are playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one and hoping you land the winning number. You're killing my brain cells.

Sure you did.....I believe you.....So what's the problem?

My ability or inability to communicate does not change what is true - I have shown it is illogical, and so unpersuasive. It also does not encompass proof of the premises assumed - or you would not have required further explanation - you would simply refer back to the proof.
You have shown it illogical and unpersuasive how? You don't say. What assumption exists, you don't say. Giving you the details of the proof don't change the basic 4 Steps and the Minimal Facts Approach. These aren't explanations of explanations. Rather, all the details we are discussing are just details, not explanations of explanations. For example, Rev. 6 to 11 give the major points of end-times. Whereas Rev. 12 to 22 give the details of those major points. Likewise, Genesis 2 gives the details of Genesis 1.

Your "evidence" isn't evidence - that is my excuse, and quiet a good one.
But you don't say why it is not evidence. Just saying so is not a counter-evidential approach, as you admit your self-declaration is just an excuse, not reality. An excuse is, therefore, not good, but bad. You're a bad guy. Your theology or world-view is just a reflection of your evil nature and self-worship.

Your continued insistence that your belief is rational, rather than based on blind faith - the type where you deny it is faith? is aptly explained by yourselfThe evidences were given which I don't know how to overturn and you weren't able to either, so the only difference is I go where the evidence leads, but you shut your mind down to it.

Atheism denies the possibility of God/s or the supernatural, through reasoned argument.What reasoned argument? You don't present any.

Agnostics claim that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God/d either way because they are outside the domain logic and the physical world.Agnostics believe that God could exist but they feel they don't have enough evidence either way. What you are describing is neither agnosticism nor atheism, but something else. It though is wrong too, for there is no reason why you can't use logic and a physical world to prove God exists as God says this is in fact how you prove His existence by observing nature. What's important to note here is that you provide no means to know if God exists, showing you how closed minded you are. Its interesting you are contradicting yourself when you say logic and nature can't prove God exists, but you try to use logic and nature to prove God doesn't exist. That seems inherently contradictory. What it is is a doublestandard. If logic and nature can't prove God exists then it can't disprove God's existence either.

See how these words have distinct meanings?I don't know any agnostics who claim your definition of agnosticism. You are going to have to invent a word for you ideationalism that there is no way to prove God exists using logic and reason and nature. There is no evidence for your theory. Thankfully, a personal God reveals Himself personally though His resurrection and by knowing nature can't cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. Praise the Lord!

Both are the same in that they do not claim to be able to prove God - which is your claim as what would be called an evidentialist
- as opposed to Fideists - who may be both believers by choice and agnostics.
Agnostics claim you could prove God if God exists, but that they just don't think they have any evidence one way or another, not yet. Of course there is no excuse for this false teaching, since God is proven in nature and by the resurrection.

A fideist is not agnostic, for a fideist has committed himself to God and knows God exists intuitively. Most believers are born-again just this way and only later discover the natural proofs such as the argument from objective morality or fine-tuning, etc.

God of the Bible says you can know Him both by observing nature (and proof of resurrection) as well as through intuitive revelation as spirit makes contact with spirit. I was born-again through intuitive revelation that all things summed up in Christ and one grows in the faith they come to various proofs as observed in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Blackwell_Companion_to_Natural _Theology) (2009) edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland.

Am I cold and dead - by your logic? : )Yes, you come across as a dullard in every way. Your spirit is dead to God. In the Bible dead means separation. You are separated from God's life. You have no relationship with God and despise the love of God. What else can God do but send you to Hell? You're a bad guy by your own volition that is what you want. You want to remain that way.

I didn't think this was about me converting to Christianity - but meeting your challenge to find fault with the proof.Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? When you realize you can't disprove the proof for God, you're left with the only reasonable choice to give your life to Christ. You should repent of your sins and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and God will save you. You yourself can't convert to Christianity for it is God who does the saving. You are saved by grace through faith.

"What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16.30-31). "We have also obtained access by faith into this grace" (Rom. 5.2), "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2.8). Faith comes before salvation (regeneration). Paul repeatedly says, the sinner is "justified by faith" (Rom. 5.1) not by regeneration since faith precedes regeneration.

kwikee

07-22-2009, 01:50 AM

I believe they are the deeper Muslims based on text of the Koran (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2941&highlight=Muslim) and other important Muslim texts.

Nowhere does it say you're allowed to commit suicide for the sake of killing infidels. Your perfect proof states this as an example of human sacrifice. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith mention KILLING infidels, but not suicide bombing-- as I said before, your mention of it in your perfect proof is absolutely incorrect. It's source for the reference to suicide bombings in the link you gave is not even cited.

They don't exist. There are over 800 factors we know of that require life to exist on another planet. When factored into all the planets in the universe, there is no chance of aliens.

God could make aliens, God can do anything, can't he? Extraterrestrial life means life not on this planet. By definition, angels and devils can be called aliens. As I said before, the Bible provides examples of what could have wrote the Bible.

As for your 800 factors, if you really insist on using numbers than try this. There are 200 to 400 billion stars in this galaxy. There's a photo called Hubble Deep Field which depicts something like 1:500,000th of the sky and contains almost 3000 galaxies. 200,000,000,000 x 3000 x 500,000 -- with that many stars you don't believe there could be another planet like Earth?

Not at all. Jesus died on the cross in the Bible, and some guy in a cave all by himself six centuries later said He didn't. Historians examine primary sources.

I didn't mean that the Qur'an and Bible say the same thing exactly, but they say a lot of the same things. The Qur'an believes that part about Jesus being God and not a prophet of God like Muhammad was a man-made change. I meant they both read like holy books and teach many similar things. Besides, muslims like to give the example that Muhammad was illiterate, and therefore would not have known all of the biblical stories repeated in the Bible. The story of Muhammad's life is far better documented and more widely accepted as fact than Jesus' very existance. Even if what he was saying is false, it's at least known how and when and to whom he said it in great detail. Wasn't the Bible not even written as a first-hand account? Did the authors themselves see the empty cave?

We can take some things to be true because almost all skeptical scholars accept them (for good reason): 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) disciples believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically, 3) Paul was converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected, 4) James, half-brother of Jesus, was converted after believing he saw Jesus resurrected, 5) the tomb was empty. No naturalistic theory can account for all 5 facts.

Here are two theories that account for those facts. 1) Jesus wasn't human or was revived by some superhuman being that does not necessarily have to be God. Or 2) None of that ever really happened and it was all made up by whomever authored the Bible.

Are there sources outside of the Bible or Qur'an that say it happened?

The Bible not does the 4 Step Proof claim this. The definition of sin being used is the dictionary definition without any mention of God.

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Oxford's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

• noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

Divine Law sounds like mention of God, the secondary, godless definitions of the word clearly derived from the primary definitions. So without Divine Law given from God there is no Sin and my argument stands.

You did not touch upon my main argument at all. My agnosticism is still solidly grounded upon said argument.

- Azim Khan

Churchwork

07-22-2009, 02:51 AM

Nowhere does it say you're allowed to commit suicide for the sake of killing infidels. Your perfect proof states this as an example of human sacrifice. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith mention KILLING infidels, but not suicide bombing-- as I said before, your mention of it in your perfect proof is absolutely incorrect. It's source for the reference to suicide bombings in the link you gave is not even cited.
Suicide bombings is killing others (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2941&highlight=Islam). Therefore, the burden would be on you to show blowing yourself up for Allah is not allowed.

God could make aliens, God can do anything, can't he? Extraterrestrial life means life not on this planet. By definition, angels and devils can be called aliens. As I said before, the Bible provides examples of what could have wrote the Bible.
Angels are in heaven and the fallen angels are in 2nd heaven. Not another planet. Life can't exist on another planet because the laws of nature prohibit it with over 800 factors making it impossible.

As for your 800 factors, if you really insist on using numbers than try this. There are 200 to 400 billion stars in this galaxy. There's a photo called Hubble Deep Field which depicts something like 1:500,000th of the sky and contains almost 3000 galaxies. 200,000,000,000 x 3000 x 500,000 -- with that many stars you don't believe there could be another planet like Earth?
The calculations done by Hugh Ross suggest even more than that, and plugging his 800 variables make life on another planet impossible.

I didn't mean that the Qur'an and Bible say the same thing exactly, but they say a lot of the same things. The Qur'an believes that part about Jesus being God and not a prophet of God like Muhammad was a man-made change. I meant they both read like holy books and teach many similar things. Besides, muslims like to give the example that Muhammad was illiterate, and therefore would not have known all of the biblical stories repeated in the Bible. The story of Muhammad's life is far better documented and more widely accepted as fact than Jesus' very existance. Even if what he was saying is false, it's at least known how and when and to whom he said it in great detail. Wasn't the Bible not even written as a first-hand account? Did the authors themselves see the empty cave?
The Koran says Jesus is just a prophet, not God. That's all the difference in the world. I have a total of 45 early sources on Jesus. How many do you have on Muhammad? The Bible was written by firsthand accounts. Why think otherwise? The disciples ran to the cave, yes. You're searching but you're not finding any holes. Keep searching.

Here are two theories that account for those facts. 1) Jesus wasn't human or was revived by some superhuman being that does not necessarily have to be God. Or 2) None of that ever really happened and it was all made up by whomever authored the Bible.
Jesus said He was God, so that would make Jesus a liar. That would mean He lied to the disciples and the disciples were deceived by this evil god. That's called gnosticism in which God is the creator but allowed an evil creator to create this universe and humanity. But all you need to do is ask ask yourself would a loving God do that? Would a loving God allow God-consciousness in our spirits knowing we were created by an evil spirit? That would, in fact, make God evil to allow that, therefore, you theory is self-contradictory.

On your second theory, there were 40 authors over 1500 years and no critical scholars go the route these individuals didn't exist and in Scripture, there are many, not just the original 12 Apostles, but many other people mentioned in all kinds of places and situations. There is just too much multiple corroboration. Early first century church fathers, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, knew Peter and John. The church fathers recorded the martyrdom of the Apostles. It's one thing such as a Joseph Smith to make up stuff or Muhammad to make up stuff, but when you get all these writers in the New Testament in agreement and fellowshipping together confirming each other's thoughts and eyewitness testimony to ensure they have the right gospel, your theory seems silly and fanciful. Enemy attestation by the Jews don't even try your approach. Nobody even suggested your ideas in the first several centuries.

Are there sources outside of the Bible or Qur'an that say it happened?
Yes, these outside sources all well documented and claim Jesus died on the cross and that followers of Jesus believed they saw Him resurrected such as Josephus.

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Oxford's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

• noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

"1. a. offense against moral law [e.g. society]. 2. Serious offence." I prefer "acquiescence to temptation."

Divine Law sounds like mention of God, the secondary, godless definitions of the word clearly derived from the primary definitions. So without Divine Law given from God there is no Sin and my argument stands.
You gave two primary definitions without mention of God. I am not disputing some of the dictionary definitions say sin is transgressions of God's law. But you shouldn't deny the other definitions that don't make mention of God.

You did not touch upon my main argument at all. My agnosticism is still solidly grounded upon said argument.

- Azim Khan
I touched upon all your points. Why think otherwise? Unless you can show it. Your agnosticism has no foundation, since nature can't cause itself, so it requires that which is uncaused. Pretty simple.

Adam

07-24-2009, 05:57 AM

Really Troy banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.
(Thankyou for allowing editing it is very useful)

In the course of your many debates about this "proof" I am sure you have become familiar with the term "Special Pleading."

(for readers: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special_pleading)

This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.

For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.

Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.

These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such enquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.

Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.

Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".

Summary - Special Pleading
"Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"

Circular Reasoning 1
1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists

2) And Is Jesus

3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected

4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)

5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists

Circular Reasoning 2
1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence

Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.

Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.

Churchwork

07-24-2009, 10:57 AM

banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.

How were you able to post this post if I banned you for false teaching? You're just trying to deceitful. You got an infraction for false teaching, but you don't get banned for it.

This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.
None of the points of the proof depend on assuming God exists first. Therefore, the reason why someone doesn't accept the proof is because it is their own free will and would prefer to go to Hell. Such irrationality and wishful thinking is special pleading, just hoping God doesn't exist so there is no accountability for your actions. You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this. I am not here to cater to repetitive self-declarations, for they are mindless.

For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.
The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given in the proof that had no religion or God mentioned as part of the definition. You obviously didn't read the proof. Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring. You're like a broken record.

The mechanism can't be entirely physical, since nature can't cause itself. So there must be the uncreated which is supernatural. You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.

Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.
Step 2 doesn't jump to any conclusion. Embedded throughout the 4 Steps is the Minimal Facts Approach which proves Jesus is the God because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for His resurrection. This is a physical fact-a physical proof. The uncreated is proven by the physical proof that nothing in nature happens all by itself, so nature can't cause itself; therefore, the uncreated exists and this is whom we call God. You may have heard of Him through the millennia. He makes Himself readily understood and accessible even to you so you are without excuse. The Bible itself is a physical proof as well, for textual criticism on physical paper and ink have recorded the eyewitnesses testimonies right back to the source. Textual criticism is a very precise field of work. They can take the 25,000 Biblical manuscripts and identify the originals comparing one to the next all the way back. The more documents the better.

These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such inquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.
Your problem is you can't find any circular reasoning, for if you could, you would have been able to do so by now, you would think. But yourself, you suffer circular reasoning because you have assumptions which you can't back up, so all you can do is repeat yourself in a circle, because you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.

Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.

It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction. That stifles the conversation, because it is just mindless repetition without you making an effort to find evidence or to repent and relent a you realize you got nothing. So you're just being obstinate, but you know that. And so you can see Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.

Your behavior seems fake and pretentious to say the least without nothing underlying your accusation.You think this is a gambit, but God said it this proof and has always been there since the dawn of man. Indeed, God has a great advantage and so do those who are in Christ who give into reality and don't deny it as you do. This is not a game, but if it were, it would be already won, because I have already died in Christ. It is an accomplished fact. And there is no greater power than resurrection with Christ in the Holy Spirit and to have eternal life, for not only is it eternal blessings, but it is an ability to know God and have a relationship with Him, that which you are without. You sound frustrated lately which is why you are getting vaguer and vaguer in your comments. That's how Satan will tend to work, when he can't get anywhere with specifics. He'll work with vagaries. God established the proof and it is so simple. So don't make game of it and belittle it with endless vain words. That's just vanity of vanities!

Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".
Scientists don't think gravity just happens all by itself. You're delusional. However complicated gravity is, we observe what we know of it to abide in the law of cause and effect. You know that, but you shut your mind down to reality, so seek to alter reality unscientifically. It's really quite twisted your mindset. The law of cause and effect always abides in nature (what you call immutable)-for that is the preponderance of evidence that we have with nothing to suggest otherwise. Very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist. How accessible God makes Himself! Praise the Lord!

It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence (not even an iota) for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next. I don't think I needed to say you are stupid for saying something could happen all by itself in nature. You said it yourself.

You are special pleading, indeed, when you shut your mind down to trillions of cause and effects holding out for the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God. And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time. You've become a monotone or clanging bell.

Summary - Special Pleading
"Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"

Nature proves it can't always have existed, due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does, and nature would have experienced far greater heat death. And of course, unconsciousness and that without a conscience can't produce that which has consciousness and a conscience. Can a bird house make a bird? The logic is clear and unrefuted. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.

Circular Reasoning 1
1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists
2) And Is Jesus
3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected
4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)
5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists
The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible doesn't use your claim God exists therefore God exists. We know Jesus is God because the text meets the highest of historical standards for ancient documents and multiple corroboration in history. Therefore, you can trust some things in the text such as the fact that Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and his creeds he got from the Apostles who said they say Jesus resurrected. That's why most skeptical scholars concede these points (for the breadth of the people and places involved), and forward the discussion to an explanation of what could account for their genuine beliefs they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer who won 245 court cases in a row in the Guinness Book of Records, said that the best case he has ever seen is for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. A favorite Christian who is also a lawyer is John Warwick Montgomery. He's been on the John Ankerberg Show.

Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.

Circular Reasoning 2
1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence
The 1st law of thermodynamics says the universe will never cease exist, so again, you are propose something, the universe will cease to exist, contrary to the evidence.

What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.

Why are you giving this "Circular Reasoning 2"--it's circular. It's your circular nonsense.

I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe was not always existing. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.

Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.

Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.
Since you couldn't show any special pleading and couldn't overturn the above points, as they have been discussed with you before, then you are still special pleading.

I don't ban for spelling errors, unless of course I guess, if it is egregious and out of control.

Each time you get an infraction it is explained why and has a time limit on it. If you are banned it will be for valid reason. I'll apply the above mentioned infractions now to your account.

You're getting more and more ignorant, and you can probably tell that about yourself.

Why not come to the table with a sincere and honest seeking heart, and if the evidence takes some place then be willing to go there.

Adam

07-26-2009, 11:58 PM

I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.

You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this.

That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.

The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given......You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition

Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring.

Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.

Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.

Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.
Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.

You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.

There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.

Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.

nature can't cause itself.

I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.

It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction.

Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?

Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.

They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.
Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.

Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.
Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.

It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next.....the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God.

And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time.

Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.

I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?

I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.

The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.

"the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.

No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.

Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.

This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer

I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.

What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.

Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.

I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe did not always exist. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.

Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.

You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
Man has not existed for eternity
Is not clearly less sinful
Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.

More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.

Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.......you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.

I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.

Churchwork

07-27-2009, 02:22 AM

I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.

Words are meant for a reason. Banning is banning. Moderation is moderation. There is no moderation that is a banning. You are just being careless with your words because you are trying to be deceitful. #3 Carelessness.

That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.
Everything you presented in that post was repeating what you had said before in a previous post, thus not dealing with the responses handed to you. And you give no indication of an opening summary, but you said, the reason you were banned (which you weren't) was because you are agnostic whom "come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to" for Christians. But you have said this before and failed before to show this allegation. In your post you don't show it either or present arguments for your case.

Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.
It doesn't matter what definition you want to use, for the 4 Step Proof is committed to the definition that is without first assuming God. This is already stated in the Proof, we have already talked about it, so why overlook this fact? This is the answer which you keep shutting your mind down to, so you get an infraction for being a mindless drone. #6 Unspecific.

The reason you are repeating yourself mindlessly is because you are being ignorant and shutting your mind down to reality of the Proof. There is actually no better word to describe the condition. The word is "sin." Accept it.

Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.
All crimes are due to sin. Whether the sin is big or small it is still a sin. Therefore, since crime doesn't happen all by itself and we can see all crimes are due to sin, we are confident sin exists. It would take a very evil man even you to admit that sin doesn't exist. That only shows you how corrupted your heart is and why Hell was created for those such as yourself.

Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.
No matter the punishment for the crime, the crime exists because of sin.

Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.
You admit sin exists so stop arguing against it. For the purpose of the Proof since sin exists, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent he still does due to the exponential progression of conscience. We are only using the objective morals across all societies that deem something to be a crime to indicate the cause being a sin. The breaking of a law is the crime, but the breaking of the law doesn't happen all by itself. It is due to sin, for a sin is acquiescence to temptation to do something wrong.

There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.
You haven't been able to show any premises. I have responded to all your points showing you your mistaken assumptions. Therefore, instead of responding in kind, you just declare your assertion mindlessly. #1 Bearing False Witness.

Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.
For the purpose of the Proof it does not depend on how it comes about, only that we observe in nature. And because we observe it in nature, we know it is really happening and can use it as evidence to show us what it is pointing to, that nature couldn't have always been existing. Your mistaken assumption is an epistemology argument, which has no bearing on the ontological argument of the proof. It is irrelevant how it comes to be for sake of the Proof, but we do observe it happening.

I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.
#5 Overassuming. We have talked about this before. Your claiming you have to be God to know if God exists, but that is impossible, since you know you did not always exist or were uncreated. Therefore, all you need is a preponderance of evidence and we have that with trillions of things with causes in nature and nothing shown to be without a cause.

Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?
#1 False Accuser. It can hardly be said it is in dispute, for you only repeat yourself, rather than dealing with the responses. I am just repeating myself to your repetitions. You need to respond to the points, for example, it is impossible for you to be God. You have presented no lines of thought that contradict the proof. You're actually agreeing with the Proof and condemning yourself to Hell by rejecting it. The infraction, therefore, is fully justified and warranted to help you realize your condition.

They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.
You're misreading Step 2. God is proven not just in Step 2 in the area it is addressing, but Step 1 also, for you need to show not just the universe can't happen all by itself, but it can't always be existing in the natural. Step 4 is required because there can be the argument of infinite regress prior to the universe. Step 3 is needed because the main argument used against God of the Bible is bearing false witness against Him. Of course that is no argument, but Step 3 is stated to address it a serious issue. If the sin of bearing false witness was not the main method we would only need a 3 Step Proof. Since atheists/agnostics/Muslims/Hindus/etc. feel this is a valid argument, Step 3 shows it is not.

Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.

Special pleading is wrong, so Step 4 disallows special pleading you can just assume infinite regress of gods or multiple gods, for there would be heat death and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, there is the uncreated Creator. If you want to argue multiple uncreated that argument fails because there is nothing to justify God+1. Whatever the outcome, it is still God and God creating which destroys your argument for an always existing universe. You'd be contradicting yourself. Which is doubleminded.

Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.

You didn't say what that question is you posed so it is irrelevant, but your point fails, since you can't contradict yourself when you argue. That is a certain way of arguing that is unethical. That is not a valid form of logic. The point of Step 3 is don't misrepresent the God of the Bible. Whatever argument you want to use, if it misrepresents God, then your argument fails out the gate. You'd be arguing against something else, not God of the Bible.

Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.

Between you and me let's forget about the money then. Since you don't point out any flaws as of yet, then doesn't that indicate you are mistaken? How posts has it been now, and the best you can do is repeat already disproven ideas (which were already presented by previous posters to you).

Maybe your lust for money disallows you from being wrong.

Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.
#1 Bearing False Witness. God never claimed to happen all by Himself. He claims He always existed. You are violating Step 3 of the Proof by arguing against something else that is not God. Boring! Do you see how mindless your argument is when you start from a mistaken assumption? You have no option of being God, but if God exists, He can be God. He can prove all things and hold out for the last thing man did not know for Him to be God. If that were His approach of showing and proving He knows all things.

I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?
#1 Bearing False Witness. Step 2 shows something in nature can't happen all by itself, so you are sinning bearing false witness when you said, "I am not assuming there is something uncaused in nature - You however, are." Do realize how unethical you are being? You violating the prophetic word of your unethical behavior in #6 Unspecific where a person contradicts himself with a doubletongue and holds two sides of the story. You just quoted me saying, it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature...." You keep arguing for something happening in nature all by itself throughout your posts, for you keep arguing against Step 2 of the proof, the preponderance of evidence for trillions of things with causes, and you admit you have to be God to know if God exists as you hold out for a proof something can happen all by itself. That's crazy. I believe you are being purposefully unethical and immoral. I have never met an ethical atheists or agnostic.

I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.
The preponderance of evidence is proof, and your argument is faulty because you insist you have to be God to know if God exists. That's just self-worship. Your "assuming something uncaused in nature" is not more logical or reasonable because of the preponderance of evidence. It is quite clear no such discovery will ever be made with trillions of causes in nature and no evidence for something happening all by itself. You lose. For something to happen all by itself like magic is senseless. But God creating out of His glory is completely sensible and full of life and purpose, for He creates out of His glory to have a relationship with His children and damns those such yourself who want to be eternally separated from God. We have His justice, love, holiness, mercy and everlasting friendship.

The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.
You don't say why it is senseless. It would seem you not having a reason is itself senseless. But if the universe is eternal in the future it is because God wants an eternal relationship. It would be senseless if it always existed in the past, for how can that which is without consciousness and conscience create that with consciousness and conscience. Can a bird house create a bird? Of course not. You're embarrassing yourself. #5 Self-declaring.

"the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.
I am not saying gravity takes hold everywhere and did not come from something else or will not change into something else, but all we do see are causes, no non-causes in nature. You need to overturn the preponderance of evidence, but since you don't think you need to and it is the key to the Proof, then you are saying you don't need to disprove the Proof to disprove the Proof. That's goofy. I would be happy to remove any infraction you incurred if you could show it was not correct. The infraction serves a purpose, so you are wasting your time not heeding them. When discussing a particular infraction, please be specific and quote the infraction given so I can address it with you. Don't assume I know what you are talking about, after all as we have seen you like to bear false witness and change the story. Be specific.

Stop complaining about infractions but not showing they are unwarranted. #9 Frivolousness.

No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.
You are getting the cart before the horse. Since the uncreated is proven, I look to see who is the uncreated. Jesus claimed to be the uncreated as God. He proved it by His resurrection which you could not disprove the multiple eyewitness testimony. So you are admitting Jesus is God, but you are free to reject Him which you do which is why you are going to Hell. Your choice. Nobody to blame but yourself. Since none can compare to Christ, Jesus is God by His resurrection. You're special pleading instead of seeing you can't disprove the resurrection and can't show anyone else is better, for a loving God personally pays for ours sins which only God could do. Every other religion or belief system is works based, but how can a sinner save himself? Every other belief is delusional.

Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.
Step 4 proves the uncreated exists and who this is. It is Jesus and He says He is God and proves He is uncreated by His resurrection. So God exists. You could not overturn the argument of Step 4. If you don't understand, I would be happy to repeat it for the umpteenth time in our discussions.

I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.
Since the account itself is proven by the highest of historical standards and preserved physically on paper, it proves the resurrection of Jesus since you admit you can't find a naturalistic explanation. You would have to throw out every historical person in history according to your approach which is just mindless belligerency. People don't doubt Tiberius lived but Jesus has 4x the amount of documentation within the first 150 years of their deaths. Obviously historians don't go your route. I don't think you understand Step 3. Step 3 is simply just saying whatever argument you do use, don't misrepresent God of the Bible. For example, if you are arguing against a modalistic Jesus, then you are not arguing against God of the Bible. A Christian lawyer would agree. You can't deny every human being in history. That's goofy. But you can trust peoples' testimony if it is substantiated, corroborated and unexplainable naturalistically to be able to explain away the conclusion: Jesus was raised from the dead because He is God.

Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.
The first law of thermodynamics says your theory is false. Science disagrees with you. That which exists can't cease to exist. If you agree blind faith is wrong, then don't cling to the blind faith of agnosticism, for it goes against the evidence of the 4 Step Proof for God.

Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.
If evolution is "not a thing" as you said, then it can't always have been existing because like all processes, they require a beginning, a first cause. Take for example the process of decay. It doesn't happen all by itself, but a process commences. All the mechanisms, the cause and effects, in nature have a cause (based on preponderance of causes), so the first event of all mechanisms also require a cause since you admit it is a process. Even if it is a thing, it still requires a cause, for what thing comes into being all by itself? Nothing. Learn about the universe, don't learn about it for the purpose to try to disprove God, for that is vanity of vanities! Learn about it to glorify God and learn about His wonderful creation in all its complexity. That's what the greatest scientists who were Christians did. God is truly amazing!

You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
Man has not existed for eternity
Is not clearly less sinful
Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.

I have responded to all your points including all your responses to the exponential progression of conscience. Don't #1 Bear false witness that I have not. You need to prove it, otherwise you are sinning.

Man not having existed for eternity doesn't disprove Step 1 of the Proof, for man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in which man would approximate into that past. Man is clearly on a per capita basis sinning less now than over the past six thousand years. This is our evidence. That sin is not a physical object, nor a judgment-for not all sins get judged-does not disprove the fact of the exponential progression of conscience, but is key towards it. It doesn't need to be physical to prove its existence and application to prove God exists. Human sinfulness is the key to the question of infinite regress of the past, for mankind would not still be sinning by now to the extent he still does. How do we know the universe is done by God, because nature can't exist on its own. This damns your position and yourself to Hell, because unless you come to Christ as a helpless sinner, there is no other name under heaven by which you can be saved (having proved the resurrection).

More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.
You are repeating yourself mindlessly. The definition that is used for sin for the Proof is that which everyone agrees objectively is just plain wrong. #6 Clanging. We have discussed this already many times.

I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.
I have shown in point by point how your reasoning is circular, time and time again, response to quote after quote, after quote. This is the summary of your faulty brain. This is evidence that a person who is going to Hell and who will spend an eternity in Hell does not care about reality, evidence and the truth. He only cares about this:

Some guys arguing on a train headed towards the train station, still keep arguing when the arrive and when they get off and go to their respective towns. When in their towns they are still arguing. Eventually, because of so much arguing they go off into the horizon and there off in the distance they build a shack and keep repeating themselves "I told you so." That is your condition. Your eternity will be in Hell with this mentality.

Whereas Christians are in agreement, born-again, members of the body of Christ and have such great joy and blessings you could never know in your condition.

Praise the Lord!