Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

"4 Easy Steps that Prove God"

Ooooh boy.

If you would like to make an attempt to disprove this Perfect Proof, there is a forum where you can do so. $10,000 U.S. has been provided and is being offered to the first person who can disprove this proof. Hundreds have tried, but failed.


Hey, Troy Brooks. Far from me to disparage this um... noble challenge... but I note that you describe no arbitration process at all on this page. This means that your "challenge" is nothing more than a naked boast, and that the probability of there being an actual ten thousand dollars is slightly higher than the probability of me turning into Sir Francis Bacon, and prove that I wrote the entire works of Shakespeare.

Nevertheless, let us forge ahead...

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?


... what

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.


This is "simply stated" ? Anyway, we've got a circular argument right there. Sin presupposes the existence of God, and sin is assumed in the first step.

I WIN !

...

Where's my money ?

Hello, Troy ? I'm waiting, give me my ten thousand. I'll sue the pants off you if you don't !

Step 2 - 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.


Fallacy of composition. The fact that parts of nature have causes does not mean that the universe as aggregate has a cause. You have to prove this by showing that the property of causality is not relational. Since it is, you lose. I WIN AGAIN !

...

Troy ?

*hears the sound of a person running, then a door slamming, then a car starting in a hurry*

Post a Comment


16 Comments:

At 2/14/2006 2:34 AM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

Do I detect a Simpson's reference in that last sentence?

I've seen so many people disect Troy's argument in the same way you have, and you can expect two things to happen. First, he will tell you that you can only win his prize at his forum. Next, when you prove him wrong at his forum, he will swiftly ban you and claim victory.

You know what? Someone should sue him, as he clearly has no intention of ever awarding the money.

 
At 2/14/2006 3:21 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Do I detect a Simpson's reference in that last sentence?"

Yessss... ;)

 
At 2/14/2006 7:30 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

A Christian offering a false reward? Unthinkable. Why, next you'll be saying that Kent Hovind's $100,000 doesn't exist either!

 
At 2/14/2006 8:24 AM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

" A Christian offering a false reward? Unthinkable."

:)

It makes one wonder if they see the irony - you know, since they believe in Heaven and all.... Oh well - like deity, like sheep....

 
At 2/14/2006 12:40 PM, Blogger John W. Loftus declaimed...

He banned me after I posted on his site as reported here.

 
At 2/14/2006 3:23 PM, Blogger streetapologist declaimed...

Hey John-

Did you have any more dialogue with Kenneth? I noticed that you didn't answer his last post. I was wondering if you corresponded with him more.

 
At 2/14/2006 4:02 PM, Blogger MDC declaimed...

I like how he calls being an agnostic "thinly veiled atheism". I thought I was just being lazy and non-commital, but apparently I am thinly veiling something. Score!

 
At 2/14/2006 5:09 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Agnosticism is a veil for something, but I don't think it's atheism. I'm thinking of something much stinkier.

 
At 2/14/2006 9:36 PM, Blogger BaconEating AtheistJew declaimed...

Do believers ever win any nonbelievers over by using their garbage logic? I figure anyone stupid enough to buy their crapola already believes in God.

 
At 2/15/2006 9:45 AM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

Nope! I've yet to read a Christian argument that isn't self-serving. Christian arguments aren't made to convince. They're made to justify, which they think they can do by attacking the contrary.

 
At 2/15/2006 10:34 AM, Blogger streetapologist declaimed...

If you follow the link that John Loftus left in this thread a Christian named Kenneth Couglan gave a very thoughtful and logical argument for God's existence. I didn't see any response from John (which I inquired about in an earlier post) Kenneth's comments didn't seem to be self-serving rather they pointed out some inconsistencies in John's post.

 
At 2/15/2006 11:26 AM, Blogger John W. Loftus declaimed...

SteetApologist, See here.

 
At 2/19/2006 3:45 PM, Blogger TRES CEE declaimed...

you could pay me the same as i do the views of these here, and pay me no mind, but I have noticed that dialogue with aitheists often ends with being accused of forcing my opinions on others when all i did was perhaps point out as i did once that in aeschulus Prometjheus Bound that Prometheus sounded like Christ, and got the soundest tongue lashing in my memory, and I did not really do any verbal diatribes with him. by the way he has major arguments in the senate and goes from party to party and agrees not with many people.

 
At 2/19/2006 3:45 PM, Blogger TRES CEE declaimed...

you could pay me the same as i do the views of these here, and pay me no mind, but I have noticed that dialogue with aitheists often ends with being accused of forcing my opinions on others when all i did was perhaps point out as i did once that in aeschulus Prometjheus Bound that Prometheus sounded like Christ, and got the soundest tongue lashing in my memory, and I did not really do any verbal diatribes with him. by the way he has major arguments in the senate and goes from party to party and agrees not with many people.

 
At 8/30/2007 10:57 PM, Blogger Troy declaimed...

The fallacy of composition is already addressed in the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Search in that link for the term "composition" to see where it is addressed.

Basically, it is not a fallacy of composition, because if more than a trillion things have shown to have a cause, then it stands to reason that all things in nature have a cause and nothing in nature is without a cause. Since the first event in nature cannot happen all by itself because it is part of the composition, then it requires a cause as do all the other effects in nature. It does not say that those things outside of nature have no causes: being only God who always existed, but that first event requires a cause. Do you see the difference between fallacy of composition and the law of cause and effect? The former is only violated when an axiom of that outside the composition violates that within the composition. Since the outside is presumed unrelated to the inside then the only possibility still remains that the uncreated created.

It is also fallacious declaration to say you have to prove they are non-relational. No you don't! Nor can you. But it does require there be a first cause since nothing in nature is without a cause. Anything in nature requires a cause. Anything outside nature no claim on causation is needed if it is just God always having existed.

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. God therefore must be uncreated and the uncaused cause. And given the nature of God, He is God of the Bible shown forth in the life of Christ, which none can compare. Moreover, it does not stand to reason to say you have to show "causality is not relational," for all causality is relational, and there is no reason to suspect otherwise. The burden of the proof would lie on the person trying to disprove this. Remember in the Matrix when the Merovingian made the profound statement all things have a cause and effect (how true this statement was! even evil knows this): this is relational as the effect is in relation to the cause and the cause is in relation to the effect by causing it from whichever composition or perspective you view from. If this were not true, you would have at least some shred of evidence to suggest otherwise rather than self-exalted proclamations (that which evil generalizes in vagaries).

Understand, the evil spirit in the spirit of unsaved men to reject God's love will just self-declare mindlessly, "you have to prove...causality is not relational." No, we do not! I thought it would be helpful to point out this error in thought because it shows the lengths of absurdity in mindless self-declarations that the unregenerate will go to. Why is this illogical? Simply, by proving two things are not relational (that there would be causes outside the composition and causes inside a composition, with nothing outside the composition which would be the cause for the causes in the composition, and no mention of how the causes in the composition came to be eternally existing), still does not prove something particularly, except that within and without are not relational upon first inspection, and certainly would not be the requirement for "the universe as an aggregate has a cause." Quite the contrary, because if the composition of causes within and without were unrelated, then you could NOT say the universe has a cause because that which was outside the composition was deemed not to be the cause.

You can read the rest of the evidence put forward in Step 2 about this fallacy of composition being misunderstood.

 
At 8/30/2007 11:48 PM, Blogger Troy declaimed...

Step 2 - 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. Material (or the smallest of particles) only knows how to react to the elements and 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.

Some are quick to misread Step 2, carelessly making illogical statements such as: "the fact that parts of nature have causes does not mean that the universe as an aggregate has a cause. You have to prove this by showing that the property of causality is not relational." This claim is illogical. First, Step 2 does not say "parts of nature," since ALL the splendors of nature have causes, given the fact that not even one thing in nature is known to be without a cause. This would put the probability against the atheist/agnostic greater than a trillion to one, since there are more than a trillion things that have a cause, but not even one thing in nature is without a cause. Scientifically and logically we may conclude Pascal's wager holds true, that there are lots of gamblers out there who prefer to be independent of God just like fallen Lucifer.

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. God therefore must be uncreated and the uncaused cause. And given the nature of God, He is God of the Bible shown forth in the life of Christ, which none can compare. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word is God (John 1.1). Jesus is the Word.

Third, it does not stand to reason to say you have to show "causality is not relational," for all causality is relational, and there is no reason to suspect otherwise. The burden of the proof is on the person who rejects the law of cause and effects to show causality is not relational. Remember in the Matrix when the Merovingian made the profound statement all things have a cause and effect (how true this statement was! even evil knows this); this statement is relational as the effect is in relation to the cause and the cause is in relation to the effect by causing it from whichever composition or perspective you view from. Everything has its own particular composition, and we have seen every composition always has a cause. If this were not true, you would have at least some shred of evidence to suggest otherwise rather than rely on self-exalted proclamations (that which evil generalizes in vagaries). It is disingenuous to take the most complicated composition of all the compositions of the universe then claim it has no cause. Every composition of the universe always a cause. Why would the composition of the universe as a whole be any different than the evidence we find for all other compositions?

Understand, the evil spirit in the spirit of unsaved men to reject God's love will just self-declare mindlessly, "you have to prove...causality is not relational." No, we do not! I thought it would be helpful to point out again this error in thought to really bat it down because it shows the length of absurdity in mindless self-declarations that the unregenerate will go to. Why is this illogical? Simply, by proving two things are not relational (that there would be causes outside the composition and causes inside a composition, with nothing outside the composition which would be the cause for the causes in the composition, and no mention of how the causes in the composition came to be eternally existing) still does not prove something particularly, except that within and without are not relational upon first inspection, and certainly would not be the requirement for "the universe as an aggregate has a cause" or for that matter, "no cause". Let me explain. If the composition of causes within and without were unrelated, then you could NOT say the universe has a cause due to that which was outside the composition was deemed not to be the cause. There could be other outside causes.

There is no requirement to show the laws of cause and effect in a composition are uncaused by the outside the composition except for that person claiming it. And, if you could show this hypothetically speaking (which you can not), it still would not help the atheist/agnostic because there could be other outside causes. Plus, you are still left with the problem of an eternity of the past of causes and effects in the composition if the universe has no outside cause, which reverts you back to Step 1 that shows why there can not be an eternity of the past of causes and effects. Let me say it again! We should not forget Step 1, nor should we misread Step 2 by saying, only "parts of nature have causes" are "the facts," since ALL of nature has causes and effects! Nothing in nature is without a cause and effect.

This false premise of claiming only parts of nature have causes, produces the faulty argument: it "does not mean the universe as an aggregate has a cause." The first false idea allows a person to be so cavalier with another false idea. You can say the universe has no cause, but then the universe would have always been existing which then Step 1 destroys. Do you see how well Step 1 and Step 2 work together like a fine precision instrument in agreement with the Word of God "sharper than any twoedged sword" [sword here means the Spirit of truth] (Heb. 4.12)? The unregenerate will continue to make odd-ball self-declarations without basis or foundation in reality. Their false fruit is not of God, but of self and the evil spirit, for which only Hell can appropriate you in God's design.

Part fact and part assumption in the desperate accusation of a fallacy of composition by the atheist or agnostic (the unregenerate trying to convince himself that cause and effect do not apply in what preceded the creation of the universe) to accuse Christians is used as an intellectually dishonest smokescreen to surmise that there can possibly be such a thing as a Godless "causelessness" outside the known composition of the evolving universe of cause and effect - which is false, but there is a tinge of truth in this statement as it pertains to God who is uncreated, that is, the One Whom is, in fact, Causeless. Since cause and effect in what we observe as a law has never been violated, we may humbly accept it is a greater guiding principle of God's design, and it would be quite the fantasy life to leap to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a cause. It would be like saying reindeer could fly, yet never once has a deer ever been seen to fly except in story tales, just as we have never seen a thing that is causeless except that which is Uncreated who is God. The atheist/agnostic should then discard their notion in a puff the magic dragon scenario existence happened all by itself. This only degrades their conscience for the Devil.

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. He chose to create out of His glory. His glory is distinct, since only God of the 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 to bestow eternal life. We may then render the reasonable conclusion the fallacy of composition is being committed by the atheist/agnostic since it is not possible for the composition of the universe to exist eternally in the past, for that would be a composition itself and no composition has ever been shown to happen all by itself. You would be making a claim for an outer composition that could not even exist due to the assumption that an inner composition has no cause, thus always existed.

In each dispensation, the leading conscience on the planet has always been what God of the Bible has revealed ever since the first God-conscious people of Adam and Eve in which revelation continued to from that truth. With Moses and even earlier writings there has been perfect harmony in the Word of God. This leading 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 revelations that flow from the proof of the Uncreated.

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. And if a person doesn't want to know God: - well, God has created the world and the human mind and human spirit in such a way that he doesn't have to know God, live for God or His kingdom. The choice is a free-choice to receive God's grace to live in Christ by the Holy Spirit for the kingdom of God or for the god of this world, to be controlled by the world and with a foretaste of hell.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home