Disprove the 4 Step Proof for God

Failed attemps by:

Bob
Infidel

From: Bob
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:42 PM
To: Troy Brooks
Subject: Re: The perfect proof

Here's a couple problems with your arguments:

1a. You don't seem to understand what (biological) evolution is. Through a process of natural selection, the genetic composition of a population will change over time, sometimes creating new species. Environment influences natural selection and any environment is inherently non-static. Hence any evolutionary process would be non-static. Hence there is no such thing as a "perfect" species.

1b. "In the past of eternity" while syntactically ok has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

1c. You have made the assumption that things have been evolving for eternity. That is not possible as our planet/solar system/galaxy/etc has not existed for an eternity. This is also in direct contradiction to your second point. You're also forming a mathematical paradox.

2a. Well you shouldn't be talking to a evolutionist about the big bang. It would be more appropriate for you to talk to a physicist - a string theorist to be more precise. As we know it, time and space do not actually exist at the scale of the big bang. Time and space are actually emerging properties in string theory that start to take hold at the Planck scale (otherwise known as the quantum foam). An easier to grasp example of something with emerging properties is an atom. Collections and arrangements of atoms, aka molecules, will have properties that are independent of the single atom.

2b. How do you know that "material doesn't happen all by itself?" You have no proof of that, just the hearsay of others with experience with 45 or so orders of magnitude in physics. And the big bang theory is not within that scale for the most crucial parts. Also, "Material only knows how to react to the elements" is flat out wrong. Can't "material" be affected by the bombardment of electrons? An electron is below the 'threshold' of an element.

3. If we're going to get all axiomatic - fine. But just so you know, saying something is true "by definition" doesn't necessarily make it so. "By definition, I am the King of Spain!" may be true in my little inner world (or axiomatic system), but that 'truth' makes little difference to any Spaniards.

4. Umm, no actual evolutionist would make that argument.

Thomas Aquinas did a better job....

Troy's Response:

1a. Why do you think I don’t understand biological evolution? I do. I really do. Gen 2:7 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. In Gen. 2.7, you may consider all that came before pre-Adamic man to be “dust”, or in other words, biological evolution to bring us to the point of approximately 6000 years ago of Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. God is not bound by time so He has the ability to foresee all things, even every tear you will ever tear. Therefore He designed intelligently for that day to come when man was created in His image 6000 years ago approximately. The biological evolution, that was without God-consciousness took a long time, and the material evolution, non-biological, started around 13.7 billion years ago. Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God did not say how long He took, only that it did take. For our purposes it is not all that important for our spirit to know how long God took to create. What He cares more about is the fact we realize He did create, and that it did not happen all by itself for that would be fantasy life. And He places about that much emphasis on it. One verse in the first chapter of Genesis, and sparse verses throughout the Bible gives God’s consideration of it for your growth and spiritual maturity. I agree the period of pre-endemic man was non-static. But if God made us in His image, He intends to have us perfected. We are not yet perfected because we fell, but that does not mean that we will not be perfected. When God says He creates us in His image, what He means is that He gives us the right to choose heaven or hell through the acceptance of His Son or the rejection of His Son who gave His life for us on the cross to redeem us and atone for our sins. You are still stuck in the quandary of not realizing that an eternity is enough time to perfect anything, that is, a final outcome which comes into perfection. Therefore we must conclude since we are not perfected, obviously since we sin (eg. telling lies, murder, selfishness, etc), that is why we need to put on the new man and let the old man die on the cross which puts to nought this body of sin of ours. As per the attempted refutation of #1 with #1a that failed, we are brought back to #1 which holds firm.

1b. Self-declarations such as “past of eternity…has absolutely no meaning whatsoever” is a mistaken assumption. Why? Because there is only two viable choices. Either in eternity past God was and God was alone, or there has been a progression of cause and effect in the eternity of the past. Again if you believe in the latter, you are disproven by the fact that if you have had an eternity to have been perfected, and you are not perfect, therefore, something doesn't add up: not only does the aspect of eternity of the past have relevance, but the only option left is that God was alone in eternity past and at some point made a conscious choice to create. God's desire for us to be perfected and eternity past of so-called evolving of cause and effect are mutually exclusive. Therefore, this brings us right back to the proof of #1 holding course.

1c. You said I “have been making the assumption that things have been evolving for eternity”. No I haven’t. That is a mistaken assumption. Why would you think I thought this? Since I do not believe that there has been cause and effect going on in eternity past, then that nullifies your next conclusion, when you said “this is also in direct contradiction to your second point”. And since you said this is “a mathematical paradox”, but just make it a self-declaration, we can consider this statement of no account also. Therefore, we simply come back to the proof of #1.

2a. No doubt, whether to an evolutionist, physicist or string theorist since they are all human beings, we can ask each of them the same question. #2 still holds because you still have to ask the question, “who caused the Planck scale?” Similarly, an atom exists because someone or something caused it. Who caused it? God since it did not happen all by itself. Therefore we come right back to the proof of #2.

2b. You asked “how do you know material doesn’t happen all by itself?” Since there is not even one iota of evidence in history in nature of something happening all by itself, we would be overassuming greatly to suggest that the 13.7 years ago big bang happened all by itself. The evidence is so overwhelming that everything has a cause and effect, that to assume otherwise belongs in books of fiction. We are way to free with our assumptions the farther we move back in time. Scientist today probably have logged over a trillion things with a cause and effect for nothing goes untouched without cause and effect, in their research on all kinds of matters, but not yet one has documented something that was causeless. Would it therefore not be crass to say one “has no proof of this”. I don’t consider the big bang, nor the finest of things like string theory or even smaller (as they pertain to the pre-endemic period) to be that crucial just as I don’t consider events around 10,000 B.C. that crucial since it is as far as God is concerned for us, He deems it for knowledge sake, simply “dust” (Gen. 2.7). When I spoke of material I used it to include things like electrons and what not. I hope you understand the spirit of what I was saying and not get caught onto a legalism in your thoughts. Electrons though not strictly material do fall into the idea of what I was trying to convey for electrons do not happen all by themselves. Therefore, we can simply revert back to the initial proof of #2 which seems to hold.

3. You said “if we are going to get axiomatic”. I have not gotten axiomatic. That is why I immediately then referred to #4 to deal with one who might think this is axiomatic. The reason it is not axiomatic is because of #1, which #4 brings you back to. It is really quite simple. Therefore #3 still holds, and like I said, if you wanted to circumvent it because you don’t like the thought of intelligent design, then just jump to #4 where you are handled nicely. I throw #3 in because of experimentally He is fact in my spirit which was an accomplished fact when I gave my life to Christ. If it didn’t pan out as promised I would not hold to it, but God’s promises such as the indwelling Holy Spirit are authenticated by the sensing of my inner man and the recognition Jesus did nothing wrong, never sinned, and said He was dying for our sins, and my conscience is clean now, unlike when it was unclean before I was regenerated. What keeps us separated from accepting Christ is sin of the body and self of the soul: our flesh corrupted by the fall, and utterly must die for as soon as one iota of sin got into it, it was doomed to perish. So we can move to #4, since for you God is not real because you have not made the choice for Him afforded to you in His image. The main reason we come to #3 is because of #2. Do you see in #2 which shows how things don’t happen by themselves which necessitates #3 thus God having created? There is not a 3^rd choice. So you see it is not an axiom at all. It just the necessary next step in sound reasoning, before one last contention of #4 that follows.

4. I have had some people make this argument in #4 because their back was up against the wall as they have reached this point of understanding, so then it would revert back to #1 as pointed out in #4 as to why.

Conclusion: Since you are not perfected, this proves that there is no eternity past of cause and effect to provide for your perfecting, since such eternity by definition affords the ability to reach perfection. And that leaves only one possibility. You were created by God, the same God of the Bible, since the Bible is perfectly reflecting God’s will proven to infinity for the cross is infinite and all 66 books of the Bible do not disagree with the eternal cross. It is a perfect book which obviously it would be if it was the Word of God, since in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All of this is about having a renewed conscience. You can’t have a renewed conscience and intuitive spirit to recognize things of God because your spirit is dead, just like mine was before I was saved. The reason your reasoning always falls short is because of 1 Cor. 2.13 “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”. You have also attempted to suggest that things can happen all by themselves yet there is no evidence of this, and all the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Therefore, God created you. If Thomas Aquinas did not focus on #1 first, then he did not do as good a job even as I did. But I have not studied his writings past a few pages, and what I found was that he is all over the place in his proof. He did not get as succinct and as precise as the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God. He made it much more complicated than it needed to be. I can only address comments made, not unsubstantiated unproven hearsay by self-proclamation.

An Infidel (in quotes) and Response (Troy)

Quote:

1) evolution does not have a goal
2) evolution is not a move towards "perfection"
3) there is no reason to hold that biological forms have been here eternally.

1) evolution does not have a goal for it just reacts in cause and effect; under an eternity of cause and effect this is enough time to be perfected. Yet man sins. Therefore, there is not an eternity of evolving biologically or non-biologically in cause and effect.
2) evolution simply reacts to environment; reaction can't explain how it came about to begin with, therefore, if you are without this knowledge, you would be overassuming that greater cause does not seek perfection in such means, as we have seen in small samples, man is far more complex than a dinosaur.
3) hence, as was stated, "biologically or non-biologically".
Ergo, an eternity of the past of cause and effect is not possible, because we are still imperfected, with a sin nature, human beings fallen, and capable of making mistakes. Though we were made in God's image (Gen. 1.27), our fallen nature requires a salvation of redemption and perfecting. For example, we to a much lesser degree commit the heinous acts of history. However more refined we are today, though we have not reached the goal of being perfected, thus indicating there has not been an eternity of the past afforded to do so. Therefore, God created.

Your false dilemma is in having your sins and mistakes, yet knowing there has not been an infinity of the past of cause and effect of evolving, otherwise you would be perfected; unable to reconcile this, the natural consequence is you sin more, exactly what Satan wants, and therefore, in rejecting Christ, His salvation, the destination of hell remains your path, since IF you will always refuse Christ, God must always keep you separted from Him in hell, and keep you from His own that receive by His grace His redemption unto perfection.

Ergo, proof number 1 is still unrefuted.

Quote:

4) Basic error: The "big bang" is not a creation theory. It is a description of events in our present universe that occured at planck time. Big bang theory does not discuss "zero" point, nor does it discuss what occured before this "time"

Exactly, therefore its effect was created by a cause. The principle of this proof number 2 therefore, remains unrefuted. Nature does not happen all by itself, since when an unregenerate says "big bang (or other natural means) is the beginning", do not forget where it says "other natural means" so as not to focus on just the big bang, for if I did not, therefore, your argument that does, will be insufficient. This is your basic error.

Quote:

5) False dichotomy error: The actual begininng to our present state in the universe could be a transition point, and not a "creation point". Some cosmologists hold that the universe is finite, but boundless, and without a creation point. Read Stephen Hawkings or, this:

The truth of this mistaken assumption is that all points of cause and effect are transition points, and all such points IF they had been going on for eternity (which they have not) would have you perfected (either in heaven or hell), having learned from your mistakes to stop making them, to stop sinning, if you accept redemption to have the means to overcome and receive eternal life; or, in hell to keep you eternally separated from God since you eternally refuse His life.
Again, we are referred back to to proof number 2 in which nothing happens all by itself; not this universe, not anything, except God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit in eternity past having always been and the 2nd Person of the Godhead, the Creator. Even a boundless universe still has its causes, and to propose something is without cause (if even Stephen Hawkings believes that, which is not fully proven in your post), is not substantiated, and definitely unproven, considering nothing in nature is without cause, and nothing that we know of is without cause.

This is your false dichotomy error.

Quote:

String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state

Hence, even string theory has its causes for even string theory does not happen all by itself. We ought not to believe in puff the magic dragon that it is the source for nothing in nature is sourceless.

Again, this holds proof number 2 still positive.

Quote:

6) Fallacy of composition. To apply a rule about elements of the universe to the universe itself is the fallacy of composition.

If what we know of God and all things abides in the laws of cause in effect, to suggest that we are derived from a non-causal relationship without any proof, none whatsoever is exceedingly overassuming. Therefore, your claim of fallacy of composition is an abuse of the very principle itself. Ergo, "in its more encompassing meaning" you would be yourself committing the fallacy of composition. Legalisms are of no use here.

Proof number 2 remains intact and still unchallenged.

Quote:

a materialist believes such a description does exist

Of course it does exist, but you will not know all the answers because you are not its creator and you can never exceed the Creator in all ways, even as Satan tries to do.

Quote:

there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.''

Self-declarations are of little use on this forum. Since all we ever see are cause and effect and purpose, there is no reason, none whatsoever to think otherwise. Theories of fantasy of puff the magic dragon are quite nonsensical.

Quote:

From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature

Exactly, nature just reacts, as proof number 2 stipulates: "It does not make a choice. But God does choose, and He chooses for a reason". Ergo, the Creator is not His creation, for He creates creation. Nothing in nature or of God indicates non-cause and effect.

Quote:

In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so."

This, of course, is an inaccurate statement, since the sustanance is the predesigning of it all that keeps it going or to cease into another form. This is a necessary aspect in order to allow the complexity of the creation to be sustained by God's foreknowledge. Therefore, disdain for the immense complexity required to sustaining will not circumvent that which was all thought out beforehand by God, however complex you may find this and hower layer-filled it confuses you.

Quote:

3. The next trick that an evolutionist or cosmologist (as apposed to a regenerated one) or atheist or agnostic tries to pull over your eyes is through the question,

7) Fallacy of ad hominem abusive.

You don't even examine the point. This is deceitful and coy. Your behavior here is a fallacy of ad hominem and abusive way of reacting in such vagueness and self-declaration. Thus, we need not respond further specifically, if you don't.

Thus, proof number 3 remains firmly unrefuted.

Quote:

"why can't God have a creator?"

Non sequitur. This question has nothing to do with your own topic.

Self-declaration is itself non sequitur and is of no use here for it does not follow. If an unregenerate asks this very question, which they often do, then obviously to them it is relevant, though false. Ergo, the answer is, "Because that by definition no longer makes God God now does it?" You will need to change your terms about God since God means uncreated if one is to use this term correctly.

This reaffirms that proof number 3 is has not been challenged.

Quote:

4. But there is yet another twist to the demented unregenerated (that I was one once) evolutionist and cosmologist's, atheist and agnostic mind that is hostile towards and independent from God.

8) Fallacy of ad hominem abusive. If you have a strong argument, why the need to turn to insults?
9) Blatant lie. You clearly were not an "evolutionist" as you don't even understand the position.

What insult? You don't say. We have spoken a lot together, and you are an unregenerate, that is, your spirit is dead to God, because you have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, nor have you received His uncreated life because you call Jesus a liar in what He did in providing atonement that accept His redemption. Vague self-declaration is of no account here in your hostility. Such behavior is itself a fallacy of ad hominem abusive and bearing false witness Let it go; let it die on the cross. I do understand the position of evolutionism, and you don't even show that I don't understand it. This is a blatant lie on your part or simply just more self-centered self-declaration unwittingly. I like you once used evolution to reject Christ, but then I began to see that evolution was just limited in its ability to explain the big picture, so it could not be used to refuse Christ. Evolution as a concept from the amoeba is simply bound and limited by its own ideology. That is that.

Ergo, proof number 4 remains intact.

Quote:

He will say "ok, so a lesser god created, so why can't he have a creator, and a creator create that creator?" This is not possible either. Why? Good question.

Actually, it's a silly question, and it has nothing to do with your topic. So, we've got between 9-10 errors, logical fallacies, or false claims, if we count your original anti intellectual attacks. No where do you even illustrate a basic understanding of what you discuss, let alone present a coherent logical argument. ' You should take the next few months to learn some of the basics before you try again. You might also want to temper your anger and hatred before you talk to others.

I agree, it is a silly question, yet unregenerates will find themselves from time to time proposing this explanation, so obviously to them it has something to do with the topic as an exuse only. "Why? Good question. It is because this presupposes an eternity of the past of creating gods and things and materials in causal relationships, one following after the other. This reverts us back up to #1, which if there is an eternity past of this evolving process, then you would have been perfected by now, yet you are not."

So we see at least 15 errors/logical fallacies/false claims on your part, not even one valid refutation, and you could not find any errors in the 4 step [perfect] proof of God [of the Bible]. This does not even include your anti intellectual attacks that you originally made; e.g. "anti-intellectual...abusive". This is itself attacking and exceedingly abusive and anti-intellectual of you.

Nothing you have said shows your basic understanding of what you are speaking about as you blithe the infinite odds against your claim of no cause and effect and your being without purpose. Surely, Satan would have you believe this to gain a foothold in your mind to possess you (to degrade your conscience even further), but God is not causeless, nor is He without purpose, and certainly not in His application of creation and man made in His image (Gen. 1.27) would suggest otherwise. Your relying on incoherent logical argument does not help you here for it simply aims to deceive.

Ergo, proof number 4 remains still unchallenged.

May I suggest you try again but not of self in your efforts; this is the cause of your anger and hatred not just towards me, but even more importantly towards God claiming you were not created and that He did not break into creation through His Son to give His life to atone for your sins. How do you expect to change if you don't even realize your real condition? You will not be able to temper this by your own strength because when you rely on self that is the problem that has been permeated by the fallen sin nature in your members when you talk to others.

Recall the Word of God says, all you need to do is look up at the mountain and ask, did you do that? Knowing you did not, you know God did it.

Praise the Lord! Amen.

Quote:

1) evolution does not have a goal
2) evolution is not a move towards "perfection"
3) there is no reason to hold that biological forms have been here eternally.

Ergo, an eternity of the past of cause and effect is not possible, because we are still imperfected, with a sin nature, human beings fallen, and capable of making mistakes. Though we were made in God's image (Gen. 1.27), our fallen nature requires a salvation of redemption and perfecting. For example, we to a much lesser degree commit the heinous acts of history. However more refined we are today, though we have not reached the goal of being perfected, thus indicating there has not been an eternity of the past afforded to do so. Therefore, God created.

Your false dilemma is in having your sins and mistakes, yet knowing there has not been an infinity of the past of cause and effect of evolving, otherwise you would be perfected; unable to reconcile this, the natural consequence is you sin more, exactly what Satan wants, and therefore, in rejecting Christ, His salvation, the destination of hell remains your path, since IF you will always refuse Christ, God must always keep you separted from Him in hell, and keep you from His own that receive by His grace His redemption unto perfection.

Ergo, proof number 1 is still unrefuted.

Quote:

String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state

Quote:

6) Fallacy of composition. To apply a rule about elements of the universe to the universe itself is the fallacy of composition.

Quote:

a materialist believes such a description does exist

Of course it does exist, but you will not know all the answers because you are not its creator and you can never exceed the Creator in all ways, even as Satan tries to do.

Quote:

there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.''

Quote:

From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature

Quote:

3. The next trick that an evolutionist or cosmologist (as apposed to a regenerated one) or atheist or agnostic tries to pull over your eyes is through the question,

7) Fallacy of ad hominem abusive.

Quote:

"why can't God have a creator?"

Non sequitur. This question has nothing to do with your own topic.

Quote:

4. But there is yet another twist to the demented unregenerated (that I was one once) evolutionist and cosmologist's, atheist and agnostic mind that is hostile towards and independent from God.

8) Fallacy of ad hominem abusive. If you have a strong argument, why the need to turn to insults?
9) Blatant lie. You clearly were not an "evolutionist" as you don't even understand the position.

Quote:

He will say "ok, so a lesser god created, so why can't he have a creator, and a creator create that creator?" This is not possible either. Why? Good question.

Troy Brooks