4 Step Proof for God

[Parture]

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (4SPFG)

1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

[Parture]

There Are Only 4 Choices (TAO4C)
 
Since ~90-95% of the people of the late great planet earth have settled on four major religious or world views, logically we can conclude only these four need be examined to determine the big picture reality because if God exists He would be gracious enough to make Himself accessible:

1) Agnosticism/atheism can't be true because the universe can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed. There is no moral compass, thus, causing you to increase sin and not approach sinlessness. Morality itself can't come out of that which has no morality. Conscience and consciousness can’t be derived from that which has no conscience and consciousness. A bird house can never produce a bird.

2) Hinduism and Buddhism are not true because you don't get nearly endless opportunity to be a chicken then come back as a human again which never effectively deals with sin; it even encourages sin. "It is appointed unto men once to die" (Heb. 9.27).

3) Islam is irrelevant because it is just some guy without any evidence six centuries later in a cave all by himself who said Jesus never died, despite the well attested historical record. If you can alter history so arbitrarily in your own mind without any evidence, you can assume anything which opens the door to sin more.

4) We are left with Christianity only. And so, there is a place called Hell. Those who refuse Jesus' atonement on the cross will go to Hell. Jesus said, "For whoever is not against us, is for us" (Mark 9.40). You're against Him if you do not accept a) what Jesus did for you on the cross for God the Father to forgive all your sins, b) was resurrected and raised to the right hand of the Father, c) reveals to us He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and d) clearly said He is uncreated Creator of the universe with the Father and the Spirit.

Together, TAO4C, the 4 Step Proof for God (4SPFG), and the 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach (4SMFA), Pascal was right.

[Parture]

4 Step Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God (4SMFA)

1. 95 to 99.9% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (we know this because we counted them-see Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

2. In these 3 chapters, Paul said he met with Peter, James (brother of Jesus) and John on several occasions in which the first meeting was with Peter and James within 5 years of Jesus' death on the cross, and they all agreed to the reason for being the eyewitnesses, in various group settings, to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

3. People do not go to their deaths as martyrs if they don't believe in what they are doing. (Church fathers prove the eyewitnesses were put to death for claiming they saw Jesus resurrected, for worshiping Him as God and the only way to be saved was through Jesus.) The apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and ate with the resurrected Jesus, in various group settings given in Scripture, which convinced them He is God and so became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters. Substantial evidence in Scripture testifies to this fact. The Bible is the proof and is allowed to prove something.

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for witnessing the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then it must be true they saw Jesus resurrected, for no other possibility exists in nature or human psychology that fits the data which shows He created us, He is uncreated and salvation is through Him. Since this is not something so complicated the world can't understand it like some aspects of quantum mechanics, a naturalistic explanation should be relatively easy to devise, yet none exist even after all this time to meet the data that skeptical scholars are virtually unanimous on. There is a time to reserve judgment and a time to give into overwhelming evidence. Therefore, we are without excuse.
 
Thus, Hell would be needed for the unsaved to keep them eternally separated from God's own people. Our prayers go out to those who are unwilling to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated: to come to the cross as helpless sinners to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

[Will]

I can do two a day, sure.

1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

You're presupposing god to demonstrate god's existence. That's a logical no-no.

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

I'm afraid I can't agree to that. If you can present vague or illogical arguments that can apply to other gods from other cultures and religions, you must admit that you believe in them too. That's how it works.

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

I put to you that the "conscience" is a construct which can be better explained by psychology and neurology. When put in more scientific terms, the "exponential progression of conscience" actually becomes something more clear: natural evolution.

[Parture]

Stephen Hawking wrote,
"The actual point of creation lies outside the presently known laws of physics."

His wife is a Christian. And Stephen, in his famous book that sold over 20 million copies, more than 20 times any other scientific book, said several times he believed in God and that science is quite meaningless without God's purposes.

His most famous student who lived with him for a time was Don Page said "I am a conservative Christian."

Hawking said,
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)

Einstein and Hawking said there has to be a beginning according to General Relativity.

Hawking said, "we proved that time had a beginning".

Antony Flew, the most published and respected atheist scholar of the 20th century, renounced atheism and confessed that there is an uncreated Creator.

These prominent scientists and scholars can't deny the evidence.

Theoretical Physicist, Stephen Hawking said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)

Dr. Paul Davies (Professor of Natural Philosophy) has moved from atheism to conceding that, "The laws of physics seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." There are over 800 variables making life on another planet in the universe impossible. And he said, "[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming."

Professor of Astronomy, George Greenstein said, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or rather Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Dr. Arnold Penzias, 1978 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, said, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing...one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

And in just a few hours on the cross on our planet in our solar system in our galaxy among 200 billion galaxies in the universe, Jesus died for our sins to give us eternal life whosoever is willing to receive it.

Science agrees with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Agnostics and atheists do not agree with Einstein.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)

You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[curiosityandthecat]

[curiosityandthecat]

[curiosityandthecat]

[Parture]

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

Let's deal with one point at a time. The proof does not require that sin as a concept be objective; only that we do observe it. So your assumption is faulty. Whether sin is an objective truth or not, we still observe it.

Let me know if you are ok with Step 1 so we can move onto Step 2.

[iNow]

1) Agnosticism/atheism can't be true

Agnosticism and atheism are not belief systems, nor are they worldviews, so there is no truth/untruth metric to be associated with them.
Assertion problem #1.

because the universe can't start up all by itself, nor can it always have existed.

It would behoove you to review cosmology, as your assertions are baseless, unsupported, and unfounded.
Assertion problem #2.

There is no moral compass, thus, causing you to increase sin and not approach sinlessness.

Morality is a product of being a social species who exists in troops.  Evolution selected for strong groups, and those animals which ignored the regulations and expectations of the group were ostracized and less likely to pass on their genes.  Morality came before religion.  Religion just hijacked it.  
Assertion problem #3.

Morality itself can't come out of that which has no morality.

Actually, yes... It can, as I just briefly explained above.
Assertion problem #4.

Conscience and consciousness can’t be derived from that which has no conscience and consciousness.

Yes, it can, and that's exactly what happened.  Those animals which mutated and made slightly better choices than those which did not out-reproduced and become more common across the population.  4.3 billion years is an unfathomably long time, and across those eons the slow selection resulted in the conscious mind.  The idea that some magic sky pixie just shat it all into existence is the weakest suggestion of all.
Assertion problem #5.

A bird house can never produce a bird.

Bird houses don't engage in coitus, they do not share dna, and they are not biological organisms.
Assertion problem #6.

blah blah blah

Since there were at least six assertion problems in your very first point, I'm choosing to ignore the other three which are laden with more of the same.

Pascal was right.

Not quite.  Pascal's wager works with all gods.  "Maybe Thor exists, it's better to worship him just to be safe."  It is also counter to decision theory, specifically the requirement of expected utility.  Expected utility is incompatible with infinite utility values.

The wager only has merit if it is useful, and since it can apply to an infinity of topics and an infinity of mythologies, it's use is actually null.  However, even if we allow infinite utility values, the argument of the wager is invalid the moment we allow mixed strategies (the moment we concede that there is more than one way to find gods acceptance and be admitted to heaven).


Look here, go find some education, become a better person --> http://philpapers.org/browse/pascals-wager

[Whitney]

Parture isn't exactly a spammer but has been put in isolation on Atheist Think Tank for creating too many threads.  I have Isolated him to the Religion section and will take further action if necessary.  Since I have already spoken with him about it being wrong to post this many threads on ATT, I am giving him strike 1 now and will not hesitate to move quickly through the strikes process.  It is Parture's responsibility to read the forum rules and comply with them from this point on.

[Parture]

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (4SPFG)

1. Exponential progression of conscience (see evidence of) disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ (by proof of resurrection using the 4SMFA).

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Arthur Conan Doyle; Spock on Star Trek said something similar).

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).

[Whitney]

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg148505

[iNow]

Truth is not determined by quote mining.

[Whitney]

Parture, you can no longer create new threads.