4 Step Perfect Proof for God

[Parture]

Step 1 - Why is eternally evolving (do not confuse this with the science of evolution from the amoeba) biologically or non-biologically wrong, that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, if for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically), by this very definition of evolving, you would have had an eternity to be perfected irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain. The assumption that it has always been going on in the past of eternity (many cosmologists and evolutionists believe this, biologically or non-biologically as they have told me so), therefore, then, what must follow, is that you have also had an eternity to be perfected and since you are not (since you are still a sinner), this proves that such evolving eternally of the past is incorrect. We can see in just a few short years from 6000 years ago since the first Adamic man that we have changed and matured in leaps and bounds and that it will not need another 6000 years to be perfected. The pre-endemic, pre-adamic period is considered the "dust" of the ground (Gen. 2.7). It will do nothing for your spirit and your life in Christ for it can not explain initial or first cause, and that is where it will always fall short of the glory of God since man can not know all God's ways, nor does God need you to know all the aspects of "dust". Evolution is not towards perfection for evolution is just a limited way of man understanding things; but, evolving (a different term relating to cause and effect), if it had been going on for an eternity of the past (which it has not, of course), we easily would have been perfected by now, having ample time to do so.

 

Step 2 - If an evolutionist or cosmologist or 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. Material (or the smallest of particles) only knows how to react to the elements and its environment (or other small particles or waves or strings or quarks). It does not make a choice. But God does choose, and He chooses for a reason. Part fact and part assumption of the assumption of the fallacy of composition is used in this regard as an excuse to surmise that there can possibly be a causelessness outside the known composition of the universe (which is false, but there is a tinge of truth in this statement, as it pertains to God who is uncreated - the One Whom is Causeless). A fallacy of composition shows us that God created since there is no first cause that is causeless unless it is outside the composition, rendering God that causelessness. Awesome stuff.

 

 

Step 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, "why can't God have a creator?" Easy. Because that by definition no longer makes God God now does it? By definition God is uncreated. The subject is God uncreated, not a god able to be created. I have His uncreated life in my spirit which affords me eternal life, His life. You may speak of gods or idols or other mechanisms, but debasing God has eternal consequences, since God is, by the definition of God, uncreated when referring to God. You can not make the argument that someone or something created God since then you would no longer be speaking about God, but perhaps a god or idol or something in your imagination. We are speaking about the definition of the only God who has an eternal life, and perfect clarity, wisdom, righteousness and holiness, in His omnipotent, transcendent, omniscience immensity. He is incapable of sinning.

 

 

Step 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. 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. 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.

[Fweethawt]

Dude, whatever it is you're tryin' to sell here has been smoked like a pipe time and time again elsewhere on this very site.

 

SUGGESTION: Spend some time reading before you paste post.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Yooookkkkkaaaayyy Pasture..

 

Since y'all brought this hawgwash into the living room of the Bosses House, I'll ask one simple question of you...

 

God who?

 

Which "god" of the literally thousands have you chosen to be your personal diety and cosmic problem solving inside job man?

 

Think carefully little bubba, this isn't a test where failure to communicate is a an acceptable scoring process..

 

Show me your "god" and I'll seriously consider your propositions.

 

Until then, you earn a steaming frothy, healthy for you, brimming with delight FOAD...

 

kevinL

[Onyx]

Idiot. That's all I can say.

 

But Mr Neil will come here with your due. But you are welcome to debate me on philosophy.

[-Demona-]

4 Step Perfect Proof for Total BS... blah blah blah

Hiya Troy, you old dawg!

[Asimov]

Step 1 - Why is eternally evolving (do not confuse this with the science of evolution from the amoeba) biologically or non-biologically wrong, that is, in its more encompassing meaning?

 

Huh?

 

Step 2 - If an evolutionist or cosmologist or 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.

 

You need to define things before you go and start throwing out terms like material. You also need to have an adequate understanding of big bang cosmology before even making such ill-informed statements.

 

 

Step 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, "why can't God have a creator?" Easy. Because that by definition no longer makes God God now does it? By definition God is uncreated.

 

You haven't defined God, Parture. Throwing out secondary and tertiary characteristics doesn't define him.

 

Step 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. 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. 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.

 

 

Assuming that we existed for eternity...which you seem to assume that's what we believe...

 

...retard.

[Brother Jeff]

Wow, what a stinking load of horse manure! Nonsense, ignorance, and ancient mythology mistaken for reality all together in one post. Typical. Glory!

 

If these four steps are perfect proof of god, then I feel sorry for god. This post does nothing but prove the ignorance and desperation of his apologists.

[spamandham]

(first instinct, seagull, but lets see)

 

Simply stated, if for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically), by this very definition of evolving, you would have had an eternity to be perfected irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain.  The assumption that it has always been going on in the past of eternity (many cosmologists and evolutionists believe this, biologically or non-biologically as they have told me so), therefore, then, what must follow, is that you have also had an eternity to be perfected and since you are not (since you are still a sinner),

 

Not that it matters since we have no way of knowing if anything precedes the big bang in some sense, but, I am perfect. I do not accept your silly concept of sin, and so it is not a blemish on me from my perspective.

 

Step 2 - If an evolutionist or cosmologist or atheist or agnostic (thinly veiled atheism since a non-choice is still a rejection of God because it is not an acceptance)

 

Well we certainly don't want to be thinly vieled (unless we are particularly hot! yah baby, yah!), so let's just admit that your concept of god is stupid at best, but more likely incoherent.

 

There is always a cause to the effects in nature.

 

All this proves is your ability to use a dictionary. Now that we have that exercise out of the way, prove that existence is an effect.

 

Step 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, "why can't God have a creator?" Easy. Because that by definition no longer makes God God now does it? By definition God is uncreated.

 

By definition, the universe is not created. We can now all go our separate ways.

 

What's that? Reality is described by definitions rather than subjected to them!!??

 

Step 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.

 

At least you got one right. You scored 25% by my taking. That's a failing grade in any class.

[Guest aexapo]

Wow! Ole "Troy" keeps coming in here -- I guess he thought a name change would throw us off and we'd just "accept" his four-step proof of God. Mr. Brooks, if you're gonna keep coming in here, come up with a new strategy -- or at least a different number of "proofs" -- maybe like the 7 Magic Reasons that God's Really Not Imaginary!

[Purple]

Dear Pature;

 

You proved nothing and were reduced to name calling, before anyone even countered your points.

[Guest aexapo]

I know what we can play! Let's play "How to tell if the poster is Troy Brooks!"

 

My contribution: you'll invariably see the words "pre-adamic" or "unregenerated" in the post. Even if he were posting about a recent purchase at Wal-mart, I'm sure he'd find a way to use them:

 

"Are you sure these shirts are for the fall season?  They seem so 'pre-adamic,' you unregenerate!"

[dogmatically_challenged]

Troy...dude.

 

(1) Go get the phone book.

 

(2) Look up psychiatrists in the phone book.

 

(3) Set up an appointment.

 

(4) Make sure you make the appointment. k.

[-Demona-]

I know what we can play!  Let's play "How to tell if the poster is Troy Brooks!"

 

My contribution:  you'll invariably see the words "pre-adamic" or "unregenerated" in the post.  Even if he were posting about a recent purchase at Wal-mart, I'm sure he'd find a way to use them.

 

Oh, you'll also see people who are critical of his POV get called "evil" or "bad" for not agreeing!

[dogmatically_challenged]

Oh, you'll also see people who are critical of his POV get called "evil" or "bad" for not agreeing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He won't even look at what is given him on evolution theory. He will just maintain that others are lying about what scientists say about it.

[MrSpooky]

OH SNAP! It's Troy again!!!!

[Onyx]

Is Troy by any chance a mum's boy?

All the evidence points to that. Maybe he has Mrs Piously Sheltered for a mother?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am a paranoid personality type. I say Troy is DEFINATELY a paranoid personality type. He is really messed up. I'm serious here.

[LadyFeline]

Sweet Grievous, I take a brief leave from this site and things just go straight to the pits, don't they?

 

Troy, Parture, whateverthefuck your name is... Every single "original" argument you might think to post here has been smoked like a bong time and time again.

 

And, man, it's a nasty bong. Don't make us do it again

[Vigile]

why can't God have a creator?" Easy. Because that by definition no longer makes God God now does it? By definition God is uncreated.

 

 

Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Why is that lost on people like you?

 

Your premise:

 

All things are created.

God was not created.

Therefore he is god.

 

[Vigile]

Wow, what a stinking load of horse manure! Nonsense, ignorance, and ancient mythology mistaken for reality all together in one post. Typical. Glory!

 

If these four steps are perfect proof of god, then I feel sorry for god. This post does nothing but prove the ignorance and desperation of his apologists.

 

At least he actually tried to read it and summarize all by his very self. I doubt a serious apologist could be quite this illiterate.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Step 1 - Why is eternally evolving (do not confuse this with the science of evolution from the amoeba) biologically or non-biologically wrong, that is, in its more encompassing meaning? Simply stated, if for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically), by this very definition of evolving, you would have had an eternity to be perfected irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain. 

 

This is either false or meaningless. If you leave "perfected" as fuzzy as you leave it, it is meaningless. If you think that the TOE claims that natural selection brings organisms to a state of perfection, that is false. the TOE does not claim that. It claims that by natural selection, organisms adapt themselves well enough to survive in a particular environment. There are many instances of a species' doing well enough to reproduce itself in an environment while retaining genetic flaws. "Tied together with bailing wire" may be a better metaphor for the results of evolution than "perfected." To believe that the universe goes on with one species replacing another one does not entail the belief that perfection is the goal. A strict naturalist denies that nature pursues "goals" - those are our constructs as we seek to explain why X is made easier by Y.

 

Step 2 - If an evolutionist or cosmologist or 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. Material (or the smallest of particles) only knows how to react to the elements and its environment (or other small particles or waves or strings or quarks). It does not make a choice. But God does choose, and He chooses for a reason.

There are theories of metauniverses, of one universe succeeding another... We don't know. To say "God did it" does not explain how anything happened; it's a string of words filling up space in our explanations.

 

Part fact and part assumption of the assumption of the fallacy of composition is used in this regard as an excuse to surmise that there can possibly be a causelessness outside the known composition of the universe (which is false, but there is a tinge of truth in this statement, as it pertains to God who is uncreated - the One Whom is Causeless). A fallacy of composition shows us that God created since there is no first cause that is causeless unless it is outside the composition, rendering God that causelessness. Awesome stuff.

 

It's cool to see that you looked up composition fallacy somewhere. Look up a bunch of other fallacies, e.g. petitio principii, and then examine your own post.

 

that there can possibly be a causelessness outside the known composition of the universe

this is utterly incoherent

 

Step 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, "why can't God have a creator?" Easy. Because that by definition no longer makes God God now does it? By definition God is uncreated. ...

Ontological argument. Many better people than I have already refuted it.

 

Step 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. 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. 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.

 

See above on your mistaken ideas about "perfection" as entailed by the TOE.

 

If you're going to go so far as to make up an entity that cannot be perceived and say it is eternal, why not just take the more economical route of accepting that matter/energy is eternal and leave it at that? That assumption, by the way, does not require you to assume anything about "perfection."

[quicksand]

Damn I thought I was so clever catching Troy in the Aximoron thread.

 

You guys already caught on.

[Nihil]

Yeah, I knew it!!!!!111!!!elevenoneone The Perfect Eternal Dumbfuck! He's like in an endless loop of entering and leaving this forum.

 

 

 

OH SNAP!

[crazy-tiger]

Step 1 - Why is eternally evolving <snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Should I? Is there any point in correcting Troy yet again?

[Vixentrox]

Guess I best start praying to Ra then.