It is false to claim that "the laws of thermodynamics demand a finite universe." Inflation, the widely accepted theory about the early expansion of the universe, allows for any amount of matter/energy to be created at any distance, including distances from us so great that we cannot detect their influence.
Thank you for refuting your own claim. Your "theory" is not capable of refuting the video as it is a theory. Further trying to validate an an unproven theory with an ad populum fallacy makes for a second proof that your claim is false. Try presenting a valid argument less the facts not in evidence and the fallacy of relevance.
You offer no proof that the universe is not eternal, nor that there could not be other Big Bangs or other universes. This is beside the fact that a "beginning' of the universe does not equal proof that yur particular gods must be responsible.
Yet another fallacy, attack on the person, WITHOUT A VALID OR TRUE ARGUMENT REFUTING THE VIDEO. Wow, I wish I could be surprised. If you could refute the video, you would have posted a valid and true argument doing just that. Instead you through the empty gun at us. Pathetic. But, feel free to post an argument. We'd love to hear it.
You haven't proven that "the universe is not eternal." The big Bang only implies that there was a point in time when the matter/energy of our own universe was infinitely compressed, not that there could be no other universes but our own. The standard scientific model of the universe states that nothingness is unstable and randomly produces positive and negative forces without cause, AND THAT ONCE THE UNIVERSE BEGINS EXPANDING, IT DOES SO WITHOUT END.
The laws of thermodynamics demand a finite universe. You are disputing the laws of thermodynamics and logic. Zeno's paradoxes allow us to realize that we cannot traverse an infinite set and so time is not infinite. there was a first moment as well as a start point for all energy in the universe that is now diminishing to a point where time and energy would cease to exist.
I love how you apply your reasoning to time and space but not to God. If your God needs no beginning then neither does my universe. Neither the atheist nor the religionist can avoid the infinite regress and you know it. The only difference is my universe requires no supernatural claims. Yours does. I think you're being a bit disingenuous here.
False! We acknowledge that time is a CREATED thing that God made! He exists outside of time. ONLY contingent or created things or things that need a cause had a cause. God is a self-actualized entity Who had no beginning. The universe DOES need a supernatural origin as it CANNOT pre-exist its own existence to bring itself into existence! Also, NO natural law could exist before the universe to force it into existence. Only if God exists can the universe come forth.
God's mind could hold ideas. God could create natural law or possess it in His mind. Then it could have pre-existed the natural universe to bring the universe about. But not on its own. You see, you cannot account for the existence of ANY idea or law! You are appealing to scientific naturalism which DOES NOT ALLOW for ideas or anything abstract or immaterial. Your world view contradicts the known reality.
@ChristianVoice08 Both the religionist and the atheist make assumptions. Yours is that a sentient being preexisted all and is the Creator. Mine is that the universe ITSELF is eternal, just ever changing from energy to matter and back again through the universe's recycling units, the black holes. I argue for a system that is self-generated and sustained. You argue for a Creator who controls all. All you have done is proposed a mystery "God" to explain another mystery. Neither God nor the BB work.
Perhaps it should be pointed out that this is no problem for atheism. The creation of the universe, by whatever mechanism, be it natural or magical, has nothing to do with atheism.
Atheism is the rejection of the claims of gods existence. Nothing more or less then that.
If you want to talk about the universe and the creation thereof, then you are taking on science and scientists, many of whom are theists, not that being a theist matters, as it is science not theology that matters here.
FALSE, atheism at least the current brand of scientific naturalism atheism CANNOT ALLOW for any mechanism or supernatural power to bring about the universe. All that exists is the natural universe. Only a God could hold the information, laws, or rules needed to bring about the universe.
Science CANNOT explain the origin of the universe with certainty or with strength as forensic science is limited being based on uniformitarianism and inductive logic. Science is not God.
Unfortunately, this guy's entire argument fails if you consider the universe from the quantum view. If the universe and the reality within it, as we understand it, is a repeating quantum event, then no "God" is necessary. Of course, theists will simply counter with "who started the quantum event?" without understanding that quantum events are just like "God"...no beginning, no end.
@ChristianVoice08 Nice try, but I haven't made any claim....yet. Second, if you knew anything about quantum physics and mechanics, you'd know that they are not so pigeon holed as you make them look. Third, the only person making the claim here is YOU. So show me this entity...none of the inferences or suppositions that theists like to make...show me real testable, observable, empirical proof of this "God".
Yes, you claimed the video was wrong because of a contemporary interpretation of quantum physics. You don't know what you were talking about, so, when challenged, you ignorantly try to through your problem on me! You don't know what you are talking about. Go troll someone like you who never took physics!
FALSE. You clearly DO NOT KNOW quantum physics. When I asked which school or interpretation of the 10 do you appeal to in this rebuttal, you could not name ONE of them. You immediately attacked my position which is evidenced. So, you have NO LEGITIMATE objection to the video. You only wish to hide your intentional ignorance by couching it in quasi-physics terms and appeals. NO DICE! You have no argument.
you do know that Quantum events do not take place in absolute nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence, so you would need to address that in order to establish quantum events as the first cause or something.
If God is eternal, then God's thoughts represent an infinite regress. You've just shifted the problem.
And Zeno's paradox is that if you constantly cover half of the distance between where you are and where you want to go, then you can never get there. It is only a problem if you assume that movement falls off on a logarithmic scale.
That would be true if TIME was eternal. But, the point of this video was showing that time and the universe had a beginning. God is not time-bound. His thoughts need not be linear. He can see and think all things at the same time. No paradox, no contradiction.
The universe (or sum of all universes) need not be subject to infinite regression paradoxes to be eternal. Time is a local phenomena, at very small scales and very large scales it doesn't exist in the way it does at our level. Time flows backwards in some areas, branches off into other dimensions which cannot be compared to others in terms of before, after or during, and may even give birth to branches which lead to itself. Time is not linear everywhere.
Then, let's deal with time as change! Infinite change cannot occur. Also, if your multi-verse always existed then change is not real but only an illusion. Are you claiming an eternal universe or multi-verse?
@ChristianVoice08 Why can't infinite change occur? And why can't infinite repetition occur? And how can you define a universal time frame against which everything can be judged if there is no such thing as simultaneity due to the fact that light speed limits our ability to observe the present? The principles of physics work mathematically without regard to the direction of time. Past and future exist only in the sense of up and down, because of our proximity to the Big Bang. Read up on it.
The Big Bang IS A THEORY put forward by a Catholic priest. Read up on it!
Secondly, you CANNOT traverse an infinite set OF ANY KIND. You cannot reach a point in space if you were actually trying to traverse a RAY let alone a LINE which are theoretical or potential infinite sets of points in space. You can't get to point A from any other point of an infinite set as the set continues to grow underneath you because as you traverse one point on the line or ray...
because as you traverse one point on the line or ray, there are still an infinite set of points to go. BTW, the BB theory is not an infinite set of anything. It calls for a finite time and finite universe as it is a START POINT of the universe. Also, you seem to think that the THEORY of relativity is a law. It is not! It is theory of the relationship of energy, mass and the speed of light. However, the speed of light is not necessarily a constant! You should read up on that.
@ChristianVoice08 The Big Bang was proposed by several people, among them a Catholic priest-- it is not a "Catholic" idea. The rest of your post is gibberish, typical of the mentally ill. Good bye.
Whats your view on God and time? There seems to be problems associated. Do you hold something similar to william craig of God was timeless before creation?
Genesis 1:1 says God created time. So, yes, God outside time. if He is not, then, He is not self defined or a Cause that is needing no prior cause. He must precede all that is except Himself. I agree generally with Craig on this point.
@ChristianVoice08 If timelessness is a necessary attribute and part of God's eternal nature, wouldn't that be a problem since God has put himself into time and taking on temporal existence? This would be God changing his eternal/necessary characteristics, something he isn't able to do (such as changing his nature of righteous to unrighteousness and being able to lie, etc..). He also isn't able to go back to being timeless.
Not at all. Creating time does not mean you cannot step in or out of it or that you cannot manipulate it. The Creator is Sovereign over the creation. Please, email me if you have any more questions.
I had 95+ average in Euclidean geometry! ALL A's in logic. And B+ in physics! I suggest you study the laws of physics and logic first! Any "new discovery" or hairbrained theory that violates the laws of EITHER simply can't describe the universe as it is. If such a theory violating the laws does describe the universe THEN the laws are false and we know nothing and science is useless given false premises - ALL ITS CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE FALSE AD INFINITUM
You insolent boob. A four year college of merit, still breaks down scores as A not just 4.0 as the 4.0 is a t-score derived from a 100 score system. But, I did study calculus, physics, marine biology and all IN HIGHSCHOOL before I got to a 4 year Major University in their pre-Med program! I NEVER WENT TO BIBLE COLLEGE! But, ad hominems are normal for professing atheists like you who bark loud but have no evidence and no valid argument.
1. The BBT is only a theory and demands that everything came from nothing through an explosion of nothing triggered by nothing. It needs a God as no natural law demands that nothing can do anything.
2. I told that to other posters and they couldn't grasp it. They could not understand the ever expanding nature of infinity. AND NO, you merely proved the refutation of Zeno's paradox as do we. Infinite DENOMINATIONS-DENOTATIONS of space is not an actual real infinite distance!
you should really look how modern science is built up.
its built up on theories that most suit the universe. if someone finds a better explanation, then the old gets modified or just changed for a better one.
everything is a theory.
cell theory, i hope you believe that. theory of gravity, thats a theory, i dont see you jumping off a building to show "its just a theory".
and it does not demand such things. you should really get a book on it, it seems the first one for you.
AHHH, so you want me to join the cult of scientific naturalism which admittedly functions like the Mormon Church moving from error to error in hopes that some day truth might show up. What a laugh. The BBT DOES NOT explain the universe too well considering the basic laws of physics such as inertia. Clearly you haven't experimented with explosions which DECONSTRUCT and never lead to organization. Further, a theory is still just a theory!
@ChristianVoice08 That you say it is 'just a theory' shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what a scientific theory is and the process involved to get it to theory status.
If, as you say in some other posts, that you spent 4 years at university level study, and you can still make that statement. then i humbly say to you, go back to where you got that education and ask for a full refund.
I am a biologist according to my friend who holds a PhD in Marine Biology. So, you say "I don't know the definition of theory. Laughable. What university did you attend? I went major university.
please don´t tell me that there are 2 Existences... wern´t do you? how is that he that "EXSIST" create the EXISTENCE? how is that something can create the existence? phahahah if god exsist then he didn´t create the existence, he was standing right there just like we do.
Again, we do not claim that He created existence, that would be a contradiction as you point out. He created all created things, us, the universe, matter, etc.
How is that God in the eternity could bring out something apart from himself, eternity has no time to happen something... and else what about the existence, if he exsist and we do also, What is separating us from his eternity?the no-being? the nothingness? And how could he create existence when he existed already?
He did not create existence, just all things that were created. We state that He always existed and dwells in the "eternal moment". that is, outside of time as He is not time dependent. As He has no beginning or ending and does not change in nature, He is not time bound. We do not know how He could exist or His inner-workings (not that He has any). We must judge by His manifestation, power and His Word as to His nature. But, He demonstrated power over matter & death.
If a real particle was infinite in number, by definition, it takes up space to exist. There could be no vacuums or unoccupied space in the universe. Therefore, if ONE SINGLE NANOMETER, ONE ANGSTROM is empty, there is no infinite set of real things! That is not an abstract, that is real science and real observation. You need GOD to have an infinite set. An infinite set could exist in an infinite mind! God could occupy all space including vacuums making for an infinite. Matter can't!
NO, are you daft? Cantor makes my point. YOU don't get that Cantor wasn't arguing for the existence of a real infinite set! He was arguing for an uncountable set of numbers. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, Conceptual mathematics & reality. The universe has space called vacuum. Vacuum is claimed to contain no matter. An infinite set of matter would occupy an infinite space. Ergo an infinite number of real things does not exist and an infinite set of any subatomic particle does not exist.
No, in order to have that be true the subatomic particle composing everything would by sheer volume force everything to be the same as the particles occupied space would not allow for atomic variance. VALID FORMAL ARGUMENT ONLY. NO MORE SIDE DEBATES. YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED THIS VIDEO.
Last time, I never said there was a natural number, infinity or an integer for that valued symbol in an equation. But, there is a symbol for infinity and it does have a value, AN INFINITE VALUE! You don't know philosophy or logic and you are planting your flag on a non-issue. You have not proven your point and you waste my time trying to find me wrong in some side issue. No dice. Either prove the universe is eternal and time is eternal or quit wasting my time.
This is still a moot point. If the universe were full of the same subatomic particle of infinite number, there would be no more room for anything else, unless you are going to claim a spirit realm embedded in the universe or outside it. Again, please, post a valid argument and number your premises. I see no value in debating an issue that has long been established as logically impossible.
And infinity is a concept, a real value assigned in various disciplines of study. Some physicist hold the the size of the universe is infinity, the scale of subatomic particles is infinity small. Again, I am not trying to be insulting. Either post a valid argument that refutes the video or we have nothing more to discuss on this video. Please, number your premises.
I never said infinity was a number. I pointed out that is isn't a number but a concept of infinite value denoted by a mathematical symbol. It is used in arguments and can be used in equations. I see now you lack of understanding of what we are discussing. if you don't understand that mathematics deals in conceptual not actual numbers at times, then, you don't understand that philosophy and physics debate real things and not just abstracts.
Also, a course in philosophy, logic and comparative religion would be good, too. Just make sure your comparative religion professor isn't too biased either way. It is good that you question things and don't just accept something without critical thought. But, you need to understand the terms and values involved in philosophy and religion before attempting to debate the issues. Words don't even mean the same in different fields of study. You'll see that in those classes.
If you haven't dealt with infinity in an equation, this discussion is over. If you haven't done calculus or physics, you don't know the terms or understand the values involved. I suggest you contact your highschool and complain about their propaganda program that denied you the opportunity to learn calculus and physics (both of which I was taught before college). You seem very bright. I suggest you do much more study before trying to debate these issues. You don't have the arsenal.
Duh, they are uncountable and are considered equal in number to all other infinite sets. Hence the symbol for infinity used in mathematics. If an infinite set were countable, each would be represented by the default sum total number of their set WHICH DOESN'T EXIST as they are uncountable. Again, that's why we use a symbol and why they are equivalent in value.
False, ja. Even if you had infinite velocity, you could not traverse an infinite set as the set would be equal numerically to the velocity and both would extend without end. Paradox kills that possibility as well. You don't seem to grasp infinity. AND, you have not answered my question of the impossibility of an actual infinite set of real things not overwhelming the entirety of space in the universe.
An infinite set is uncountable as the numbers never end. It's value is infinity not a single number or integer. You don't seem to grasp infinity or the difference in abstract mathematics and real things. Physics is not theoretical in it's mathematics except in theoretical physics where it is speculation and not grounded in observation and replication.
2-Logical. 3-Known that it cannot exist. If an infinite number of real things (one item only here not talking about infinite different things), there would be no room for anything else.
4-False, World views are philophical but THEY ANSWER questions about reality. If they don't they're an inadequate world view.
You haven't taken a course in logic apparently. I was responding to your numbered item. You don't know relevance or fallacies and you don't know logical necessity. I am no longer amused but annoyed. Post a valid argument long form with numbered premises or I will block you. Anything but a valid argument from you is spam and petty bickering not argumentation.
Lastly, I really don't have time when you present no valid and true argument refuting the video's argument. You did not prove an error in any premise that would negate the conclusion. You present no evidence that the universe can be eternal. If you come up with a valid argument for this in future, post it in formal language. Until then, I don't care about Cantor's ideas. I am concerned with reality. I am not here to sell theories but deal in fact and logical necessity.Mental exercises r for fun
That is not an argument. Go take Logic 110 at least. No, you haven't proved that the universe could be eternal. You can't play off my argument to support yours. You have to prove that the universe is eternal or that it COULD BE ETERNAL WITH LOGICAL NECESSITY. And if Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche couldn't do it, YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T EITHER. Take a course beyond philosophy 101. And if you took 101, go back and slap your prof! He ripped you off.
Well, amongst us logic students, it is a contradiction to compare unlike things or to consider things that are categorized by value or quantity as members of the same set if they are disproportionate or unequal in definition. That is, by definition, if a thing is not equivalent in nature and definition to be assigned to a set, it cannot be in the same set with a different thing. Further, this does not prove that a real set of infinites can exist. AND CONT
The definition of any infinite thing is that it is not bound and has no end or final count. Further your prior claim failed because it failed to understand that infinity in equations is equal. Ergo, any 2 variables that are infinite in an equation are equal and cannot exceed or surpass each other.
AND, this does not apply to actual things as mathematics is the arbitrary assignment of values through numbers to measurements, quantities or variables. Mathematics deals in infinite theory not infinite reality. Like plan e geometry, a ray is infinite by definition but may not be a real thing. It is a mathematical construct with which we can know things about real things. No real ray has been found in nature. if so, cite it.
I'm a scientist not an idealist. I love biology and physics and I interpret the universe as I perceive it. I do not superimpose my world view upon the universe in a contradictory manner as do atheists, pantheists, human secularists and most of all scientific naturalists (whose name itself points out a presupposition and internal contradiction).
Please, don't get me wrong. I appreciate your posting a rebuttal. Your posts reflect intelligence and thought. I just think you missed the point when applying mathematics (which deals with infinite ideas and concepts and such sets) with logic and philosophy which deal in defining reality with logical necessity and actuality. Unless you are an idealist, then, actual infinite sets cannot exist in reality. Again, space will not allow for an actual infinite set of real things.
Time is a real thing in that is is measurable in change. To traverse time, you must endure infinite change.
I would recommend you view this in plane geometry. If you attempt to walk a geometric line, you can never reach the end as it extends infinitely in BOTH directions. It has NO start and no end. Therefore, no matter where you begin walking it, you cannot walk the entire line. Such is time if it were infinite.
Atheists and others try to avoid this obvious contradiction of their billions and billions of years and the universe being eternal by trying to make time circular. But, that doesn't help. It merely further muddies the water. If time is not at all linear, then, there is no place for time. I studied basic physics and find no acceptable explanation of how the universe is perceived by us to be accurate if we attempt to make time circular or infinite universes real.
False. The laws of thermodynamics demand that the universe is neither eternal nor infinite. The usable energy of the universe would long be used up if it were ions old. And, there is no incontestable proof that the universe is cyclic as no one has witnessed the cycles. Even worm holes & black holes are not proven. They are constructs of physics systems made by man. I believe the new theories are mythical constructs geared at explaining away the contradictions of atheistic cosmology.
Such a construct of men, collapses under its own weight. It sounds cool in think tanks to try and imagine it and to draft formulas and equations to will it into existence. but, alas, logic kills it every time. Such theories always present with a contradiction either internal or a contradictions of the established laws of science.
2. Yes, it follows if it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite set of actual points, then, that does follow. Further, you have not proven the logical possibility that an infinite set of actual ANYTHING can exist. AND, if any actual infinite set of real things could exist, then, where is the space for any other thing to exist in a universe filled with an actual infinite set of something.
False. Time is basically change in nature ACCORDING TO SOME. You don't seem to know that philosophy and physics are concrete on what time really is. Some of us belong to camps that define time. Others in both fields will hold loosely to a definition. Time is not at all easily defined. If you come with a pet answer, you aren't fully informed as to the question of time. I can break it down into nanoseconds or molecular deterioration, BUT, a question still exists.
No, there is disagreement in physics AND in philosophy over what time is. Most in the past considered time=change. Now it is again redefined. Provide citations that state that all agree on the definition of time. I have not attempted to fix the definition of time. You have. So, prove that there is a unilateral consensus on the definition in both fields (even though consensus does not establish fact and physics continues to change positions on the facts of reality).
Second, you misrepresent what I say. Don't put words in my mouth. God created time along with everything else that was created. HE IS OUTSIDE OF TIME! Therefore, we Christians are not on some theological clock. We ground time in physics terms!
FALSE. I am not implying reverse traversal of time. I am stating plainly that the universe cannot be eternal with time as it would have had to traverse infinity to get to the moment now. Zeno's paradox of motion failed as it was predicated on mathematical infinite sets & not real infinite sets. BUT, a similar dilemma does apply to time as it is in physics measured in actual change of real things. It is an actual increment or measure of a real thing not a concept of infinity.
one argument against infinite regress is that if time goes back forever it would take forever to reach the present moment so we could not be here. Hogwash. Its like saying the number one cannot exist because you would have to go through an infinite number of numbers to get from negative infinity to zero than infinite fractions to get from zero to one. But of course we all know one exists. Each moment just is what it is just as each number just is what it is.
False. A real set of actual points in time is not to be confused with an infinite set of arbitrary points like the numeric systems. It is not actual but assigned. Time is real. False comparison = false conclusion
While atheism doesn't explain the origin of the universe, unlike Theistic religion it doesn't try to--I can admit what I don't know--can you, because it seems quite clear that you can't if your proposing something for which there cannot be any evidence for. It is not only illogical to suggest something independent of reality, which could then not be known (which you arbitrarily give immunity to the rules with which you derive it's necessity), but it does nothing to advance our knowledge.
1. We do have evidence to support our world view (Jesus was a real person with real history).
2. A real world view answers the 5 most important questions (or at least tries to do so) such as where do we come from. You admit that you don't have a real world view just a bunch of questions. Hmmm
3. We do NOT suggest anything that is illogical, impossible or contrary to reality. You need to watch my vids & listen to Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, et al, to understand what we do say
1.Jesus as a historical person is not well established.
2.I can admit what I don't know, being able to fill that void with what you think is an answer is not a strength.
3.Omnipotence and Omniscience are illogical. A being of infinite complexity preceding everything instead of being the product of time is irrational and contrary to everything we see in reality. Being so arrogant as to think the vast universe was created for us is irrational.
1. Evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. No respectable scholar is going to deny Jesus of Nazareth. I doubt you have studied Him.
2. You don't know what I know and project your own lack of knowledge on me. Don't presume to speak of what I "do not know"!
3. Give a valid and true argument against omnipotence and one the same against omniscience. They are not illogical! If you cannot provide the arguments, you are making ignorant claims like your last statement!
1. Provide one contemporary account of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
2. I'm sorry that because you view your beliefs as truth, that you would hold them as knowledge. But because it's a matter of belief, stating that you think it's an answer is no preclusion of what you know (just of what you think).
3.Intelligence is demonstrable through limitations, being unlimited because one is omnipotent renders intelligence indemonstrable and therefore nonsensical to preclude.
1. The Gospels, Josephus, the epistles (letters) in the New Testament. Again, you demonstrate no knowledge of what you are debating. This is not a hobby or interest for me. I studied psychology, marine biology, and logic in college for 7 years. History was a hobby of mine in college, especially ancient history but if you want to dabble in philosophy, you better know history.
2. False claim! I do not believe! I speak of what I know.
1. You don't know jack about the Bible. The NT is contemporary as it was composed by His contemporaries and completed prior to 73AD! Josephus was contemporary and you only asked for 1, I gave 26!
3. a-You failed to provide proof of your false claims about omniscience and omnipotence. b-intelligence is not limited by or delineated by limitation. Intelligence is not linked to potency. Intelligence is the presence of knowledge. If one knows everything, one is omniscient.
Perhaps I'm lacking patience, but it seems abundantly clear that your either intentionally misunderstanding my comments, or are selectively reading portions of what I write. Because of this I am losing interest in discussing these things with you, but I'll give this at least one more try. "failed to provide proof". When did you provide proof of your claims? How can you demonstrate intelligence without defining parameters ie limitations? I'd like to hear that explained.
It is not illogical to know everything. Name the law of logic violated or the argument (FORMAL ARGUMENT) that proves that a being cannot know everything. Oops, you have to prove a negative again...hmm seems like you constantly state negatives as though they're fact after I pointed out that you can't prove a negative.
But, I am out of patience and soon to be out of time. you have yet to present a valid argument let alone a true one just ignorant denials of inconvenient truths.
NOT ASSERTIONS, logical requirements. The video proves that infinite regression is a logical contradiction. God says He is infinite and outside of time and He created time, ALL OF WHICH solve your dilemma that you would posit the magical appearance of the universe out of nothing to solve the glaringly obvious need to explain how the universe exists if there is no Creator to originate it.
False. We clearly state that HE HAD NO ORIGIN. If God had a beginning, HE AIN'T GOD! He said He had no beginning and has no end. He is the I AM, in hebrew - I ever was and ever will be. He did not create Himself. Now you are just grasping at straws.
@gregrutz Not an argument. That is not the argument of the video. Make a valid counter-argument or go bug someone else, Greg. I don't hear any logic from you so far.
@ChristianVoice08 "Atheism HAS EVANGELIZED BY THE SWORD unlike true Christianity"
Christianity wasn't spread by sword? There were atleast 10 major crusade campaigns and the organization was the Catholic church that carried this out and there was no other greater power. So you deity allowed a false religion to gain all power and control the minds of Europeans for 100's of years? Why is it that Christianity only seems to exist where the crusades took place?That should tell you something.
@jjason23296 The crusades. again you have this arse about face. The middle-east at this point was the richest, most advanced part of the known world, Europe was bankrupted from in-fighting. The crusades were primarily to cease land and wealth, the fallacy was that the ordinary people were coaxed into fighting, here is where the pope and the kings of Europe went AGAINST the teachings of Christianity to achieve their war. It was in VIOLATION of Christian teachings, but not atheistic survival.
@sh3rv ok so you tell me who the "true Christians" were .
I wanna know of 1 single denomination that didn't kill people in the name of god.
What is you denomination? Did this denomination exist all the way to Jesus?And how does you denomination not some how orginate with the same people who spread Christianity by the sword. And by the way neither Christianvoice08 nor you have explained why it was moral for Moses to rape women and children in Numbers 31:7-18
Let's hold all discussion to Yahoo and real time talking. We can cover more ground and I will take any scripture you want and we will examine line by line IN CONTEXT to your heart's desire. I am not at all worried. I think you will be surprised when we examine the words in real time and look at the whole chapter in context not pulling out a phrase here or there.
Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Zwinglians, Puritans, Quakers (were pacifists), Free Will Baptists, and some Professing Christian assemplies that have a few doctrinal issues who haven't killed Pentecostals, Assemblies of Christ and AO God, TO NAME A FEW. You don't know what you are talking about.
@jjason23296 I dont have a denomination, i dont subscribe to the religion, my faith if based on the bible it self not on one groups views over another, I am simply a Christian because i believe and follow the teaching of Christ.
So you think every Christian has killed? if so answer me this, have they killed in harmony or in violation to the Christian belief ?
@sh3rv Your comparing the killing power of crusaders with swords to modern dictators with machine guns,biological weapons ,bombs,nukes, and missles and you don't think that it might be because of technology that people can kill larger amounts of people quickly compared to the medevil era? I hope you thought about this. Have you?
@jjason23296 i am so sick of your ignorance its actually painful now.
Starling killed millions of his own people without a single shot fired as did many of the atheist dictators. Its not the technology that enabled millions to die, it was the philosophy that humans are nothing more than animals. Dont bleat on about how killing is wrong or evil, you have no moral ground to stand on as your just a slightly more evolved chimp (fyi im aware of the non direct (relation).
@sh3rv If the number 100 million that you say was killed in the name of atheism was lower than that of the number who were killed in the name of religion or god would that mean atheism is true? If no then you have no basis or point .
Atheism does not offer a reason to kill. I wouldn't kill someone because i know there is no god? Thats like saying people who don't believe in Santa clause will kill people.
They killed people in the name of nationalism and marxist ideology not atheism.
I refuted your false claim about murderers above. You have not admitted to your error. I don't see how any honest dialogue is possible when everytime you make a false claim and are refuted, you make another different but equally false claim. Lying to avoid refutation is not debating an issue.
@jjason23296 Atheism takes away the vale of life and the individual, so killing someone is the same as killing a dog, or a fly, why should it differ? If The philosophy of no God and humans evolved from snot as you hope if true, then if you piss me off i have no objections to killing you and your family, same as killing rats which may plague your home. God has given us value, a life which we cannot create and the spark of his divinity, it is wrong to kill because we belong to God, simple.
THAT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY. I can claim to be a buddhist and be lying about it! If you claim to be of Jesus but disobey His commandments, HE SAYS YOU ARE NOT HIS SERVANTS!!! He said that He will tell those who say they did miracles in His name, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity. I NEVER KNEW YOU!"
Your lack of education is amazing. But, I told you I wanted an argument Jason. You seem incapable of making a valid argument.
I realize that you wont accept the fact that Christianity was spread by the sword in most of Europe but your bible states rather clearly that the prophets killed and raped in the name of imperialism just like the Pope.
Numbers31:7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. hen the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages
From now on, Jason. Don't post one of your claims about Christianity murdering without posting a valid source for the claim. I can claim there is an easter bunny, but, without a valid source for that claim it is just a claim or an intentional lie. Cite a source and don't state the obvious (i.e. that when you make a false claim that I will deny it). You have the burden of proof when you make a claim that contradicts known history.
The problem is you don't get the point that it doesn't matter what you think is "True Christianity" because anyone can say what they want and hold any interpretation of Scripture and whether you agree with it or not it wont matter because your deity will not come down to earth to set the record strait. Religion makes people believe that other people are evil because they don't have the same delusion. I am telling you that Christianity is mythology and your deity will not stop me
NO, Jason. True Christianity is STRICTLY DEFINED in the New Testament books. It is plainly written and rewritten by authors from the disciples through the Catholic apostasy, again in the Middle Ages and the Reformation right down to early America. If you had gotten a decent private school education, your world history class would have laid out basic Christianity & explained the reformation. Even New Testament scholars that reject Jesus know what Christianity is.
Also, Christianity DOES NOT reign where the Crusades were fought. If you knew any history, you would know that Islam is the predominant religion in the areas where the crusades were fought. THe crusades were fought to stop the Western expansion of Suliman and other Muslim conquerors. I thank God the wicked Catholics fought the Crusades. I am glad I speak English and not Urdu or another Arabic tongue!!! Did you even study history in highschool? You should sue the school, man.
@ChristianVoice08 yes but the crusades did not just fight off muslim invassion. They offensively invaded Jerusalem and killed Muslims and Jews and they killed Europeans who didn't believe in Christianity. If it hadn't been for the sword Christianity wouldn't exist. Your bible even demonstrates that violence is how your religion is spread. Moses and Joshua were king warlaord who raped and pillaged just like the crusaders and they took land that wasn't there in the first place.
Clearly, you didn't study history. They were a halting of Muslim expansionism and retaliation to Mulsim invasion of the "Holy Cities" in Palestine. The rich trade routes of pilgrims were sought by the Muslims in keeping with the practices of Mohamed who taught that robbing pilgrims of other religions was good. He used his raids to raise money and build power. If you study the history BEFORE THE CRUSADES to get it into context, then, the truth is obvious.
@jjason23296 Why are you so against killing ? Can you answer for a secular point of view please and not be influenced by Christianity or other religions? i would like to hear your reasoning. thanks.
@sh3rv I am against killing because I don't want to be killed and I don't want my friends family to be killed because then i wouldn't have any one to talk to and it's not fun being killed. That is why .
My question to you is if you believed there was no god would you just turn into an animal and rape and kill your family? Are you that primitive that you can't do any thing with out a heavenly reward or the threat of punishment?? Thats how dogs live. (not all)
You have no justification to call murder wrong. So, you are borrowing from our world view to condemn it. For your claims to be true, God must exist and that refutes your base office.
@ChristianVoice08 You sound rational, but you're avoiding his question. So I shall repeat it for him, in capitals to make it clearer:
"IF THERE WAS NO GOD THEN WOULD YOU COMMIT MURDER?"
if no, then you have proved you have no argument.
if yes, then you have shown yourself to be a despicable human being.
But you raise a good point about calling murder "wrong". My answer is that I define anything that causes unnecessary suffering as "wrong", circumventing the need for a god-based definition.
False, the video does not argue that AT ALL. It debunks that claim. But, it points out that you ARE living inconsistent with your world view when you ARE moral and atheist. Nietzsche pointed out that if there is no God, there are no rules and there was no legitimate reason for his contemporaries to "pick God's pockets" before throwing the body off the bridge. HE SAID that there are no moral values if there is no God. If I knew there was no God, I wouldn't not be concerned
If I knew there was no God, I wouldn't not be concerned with morals. I would be self-serving and survive no matter what it took. You can't argue for evolution/natural selection and morals. I can use Hitler's (nietzschean) "will to power" and take over a country! Just like Stalin, Mao and the other murderous leaders who took power by the sword. That is consistent with their atheism. YOU on the other hand CANNOT claim that morals EXIST if there is no God! No God-NO OBLIGATIONS to Anyone!
@ChristianVoice08 Hitler killed in the name of God and thought what he was doing was right. Stalin and Mao killed to gain power, not in the name of atheism. They knew than what they where doing was wronge, they where communist, so they where the state and the state was "above god". If I kill 3 men robbing a bank and am an atheist, would I have killed in the name of there not being a god? Of course not. Your a religous moron, go into a hole and die so our spiecie can pogress.
FALSE! Hitler was a Hindu/occultist! If he believed in a god it was lucifer not JESUS! So, no, Hitler did not kill in the name of Jesus. Sorry. Do some history study before making such patently absurd claims. Also, debate on ONE page only or I will be forced to delete comments. You already brought this false argument up on another page. Keep it there! It has NOTHING to do with this video.
That is a lie. He was an Aryan by claim which is an occultist Hindu! Your lack of knowledge in these areas is starting to show. You need to research these matters FOR YOURSELF!
@jjason23296 But thats just it its your wants. What is 3 people want you dead, they out number you 3 to 1 so they have the majority, if they want you dead then why not?
Where do you get your value from? or your morals? if its just a case of wants then you are on very shaky ground here, im sure you can think of a better argument, come on give it a go, use that brain that God gave you.... think man, think !! : )
THAT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY. I can claim to be a buddhist and be lying about it! If you claim to be of Jesus but disobey His commandments, HE SAYS YOU ARE NOT HIS SERVANTS!!! He said that He will tell those who say they did miracles in His name, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity. I NEVER KNEW YOU!"
Your lack of education is amazing. But, I told you I wanted an argument Jason. You seem incapable of making a valid argument.
@ChristianVoice08 Roman Catholic church that is self explanatory. The Septuagint was written in the same language that Constantine and the majority of romans spoke. it was the Catholic church that fought off Muslims from invading Europe. It was the catholic church that existed before all other organized christian religions. How can you believe that Constantine wasn't roman Catholic when his kingdoms government is the modern day catholic church and is stationed in Rome to this day?
The Greek Septuagint was written in GREEK not Hebrew and IS NOT THE BIBLE! The accepted texts are the Textus receptus in Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint is merely a translation of the Hebrew texts to Greek. Your claim is false again. Do you get your facts from a Cracker Jack Box? I am willing to block you if you won't present a valid argument not because of your opinions. I tire of hearing your opinion. I want to hear a fact based argument!!!
@ChristianVoice08 The bible is translated from the Septuagint . Constantine wrote your scripture. You are just beating around the bush. Constantine created the first written scripture for Christianity. He was the emperor of Rome which is the same organization with ownership of the same assets and infrastructure that is now the modern day roman catholic church. There is no hebrew text of the new testament that existed before the greek Septuagint.
That is patently false, Jason. Constantine DID NOT write anything Biblical. His nickname was the Old Pagan Wolf. He did not write the Bible. The Papyri predate him. A simple study of New Testament texts and basic ancient history would have revealed that irrefutable fact.
It is false to claim that "the laws of thermodynamics demand a finite universe." Inflation, the widely accepted theory about the early expansion of the universe, allows for any amount of matter/energy to be created at any distance, including distances from us so great that we cannot detect their influence.
TheShinedownfan21 1 month ago
@TheShinedownfan21
Thank you for refuting your own claim. Your "theory" is not capable of refuting the video as it is a theory. Further trying to validate an an unproven theory with an ad populum fallacy makes for a second proof that your claim is false. Try presenting a valid argument less the facts not in evidence and the fallacy of relevance.
ChristianVoice08 1 month ago
You offer no proof that the universe is not eternal, nor that there could not be other Big Bangs or other universes. This is beside the fact that a "beginning' of the universe does not equal proof that yur particular gods must be responsible.
MRobert2l 1 month ago
@MRobert2l
You need no empirical proof in the case of a logical impossibility!
ChristianVoice08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristianVoice08 QUOTE: "You need no empirical proof in the case of a logical impossibility!"
So you finally admit that the existence of gods is a "logical impossibility." Very well, then, you've proven my point.
MRobert2l 1 month ago
ChristianVoice08 blocks a lot of people because he can't win a fair debate. Typical.
MRobert2l 2 months ago
@MRobert2l
Yet another fallacy, attack on the person, WITHOUT A VALID OR TRUE ARGUMENT REFUTING THE VIDEO. Wow, I wish I could be surprised. If you could refute the video, you would have posted a valid and true argument doing just that. Instead you through the empty gun at us. Pathetic. But, feel free to post an argument. We'd love to hear it.
ChristianVoice08 1 month ago
You haven't proven that "the universe is not eternal." The big Bang only implies that there was a point in time when the matter/energy of our own universe was infinitely compressed, not that there could be no other universes but our own. The standard scientific model of the universe states that nothingness is unstable and randomly produces positive and negative forces without cause, AND THAT ONCE THE UNIVERSE BEGINS EXPANDING, IT DOES SO WITHOUT END.
TheShinedownfan21 2 months ago
@TheShinedownfan21
The laws of thermodynamics demand a finite universe. You are disputing the laws of thermodynamics and logic. Zeno's paradoxes allow us to realize that we cannot traverse an infinite set and so time is not infinite. there was a first moment as well as a start point for all energy in the universe that is now diminishing to a point where time and energy would cease to exist.
ChristianVoice08 1 month ago
@2eelShmeal
THEN WHY DID HE CAPITALIZE "Cosmos"??? That is an identification of deity. You are blocked for obscenity.
ChristianVoice08 3 months ago
I love how you apply your reasoning to time and space but not to God. If your God needs no beginning then neither does my universe. Neither the atheist nor the religionist can avoid the infinite regress and you know it. The only difference is my universe requires no supernatural claims. Yours does. I think you're being a bit disingenuous here.
2eelShmeal 4 months ago
@2eelShmeal
False! We acknowledge that time is a CREATED thing that God made! He exists outside of time. ONLY contingent or created things or things that need a cause had a cause. God is a self-actualized entity Who had no beginning. The universe DOES need a supernatural origin as it CANNOT pre-exist its own existence to bring itself into existence! Also, NO natural law could exist before the universe to force it into existence. Only if God exists can the universe come forth.
ChristianVoice08 4 months ago
@2eelShmeal
God's mind could hold ideas. God could create natural law or possess it in His mind. Then it could have pre-existed the natural universe to bring the universe about. But not on its own. You see, you cannot account for the existence of ANY idea or law! You are appealing to scientific naturalism which DOES NOT ALLOW for ideas or anything abstract or immaterial. Your world view contradicts the known reality.
ChristianVoice08 4 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 Both the religionist and the atheist make assumptions. Yours is that a sentient being preexisted all and is the Creator. Mine is that the universe ITSELF is eternal, just ever changing from energy to matter and back again through the universe's recycling units, the black holes. I argue for a system that is self-generated and sustained. You argue for a Creator who controls all. All you have done is proposed a mystery "God" to explain another mystery. Neither God nor the BB work.
2eelShmeal 4 months ago
Perhaps it should be pointed out that this is no problem for atheism. The creation of the universe, by whatever mechanism, be it natural or magical, has nothing to do with atheism.
Atheism is the rejection of the claims of gods existence. Nothing more or less then that.
If you want to talk about the universe and the creation thereof, then you are taking on science and scientists, many of whom are theists, not that being a theist matters, as it is science not theology that matters here.
PandoraAdventure 4 months ago
@PandoraAdventure
FALSE, atheism at least the current brand of scientific naturalism atheism CANNOT ALLOW for any mechanism or supernatural power to bring about the universe. All that exists is the natural universe. Only a God could hold the information, laws, or rules needed to bring about the universe.
Science CANNOT explain the origin of the universe with certainty or with strength as forensic science is limited being based on uniformitarianism and inductive logic. Science is not God.
ChristianVoice08 3 months ago
Unfortunately, this guy's entire argument fails if you consider the universe from the quantum view. If the universe and the reality within it, as we understand it, is a repeating quantum event, then no "God" is necessary. Of course, theists will simply counter with "who started the quantum event?" without understanding that quantum events are just like "God"...no beginning, no end.
GinXYZ 7 months ago
@GinXYZ
Let's test your claim. Which of the ten interpretations of quantum are you referring to and why that one?
ChristianVoice08 7 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 Nice try, but I haven't made any claim....yet. Second, if you knew anything about quantum physics and mechanics, you'd know that they are not so pigeon holed as you make them look. Third, the only person making the claim here is YOU. So show me this entity...none of the inferences or suppositions that theists like to make...show me real testable, observable, empirical proof of this "God".
Oh wait...you can't. Never mind.
GinXYZ 7 months ago
@GinXYZ
Yes, you claimed the video was wrong because of a contemporary interpretation of quantum physics. You don't know what you were talking about, so, when challenged, you ignorantly try to through your problem on me! You don't know what you are talking about. Go troll someone like you who never took physics!
ChristianVoice08 7 months ago
@GinXYZ
FALSE. You clearly DO NOT KNOW quantum physics. When I asked which school or interpretation of the 10 do you appeal to in this rebuttal, you could not name ONE of them. You immediately attacked my position which is evidenced. So, you have NO LEGITIMATE objection to the video. You only wish to hide your intentional ignorance by couching it in quasi-physics terms and appeals. NO DICE! You have no argument.
ChristianVoice08 7 months ago
@GinXYZ
you do know that Quantum events do not take place in absolute nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence, so you would need to address that in order to establish quantum events as the first cause or something.
BreakoutLuceal 4 months ago
If God is eternal, then God's thoughts represent an infinite regress. You've just shifted the problem.
And Zeno's paradox is that if you constantly cover half of the distance between where you are and where you want to go, then you can never get there. It is only a problem if you assume that movement falls off on a logarithmic scale.
MrFungus420 7 months ago
@MrFungus420
That would be true if TIME was eternal. But, the point of this video was showing that time and the universe had a beginning. God is not time-bound. His thoughts need not be linear. He can see and think all things at the same time. No paradox, no contradiction.
ChristianVoice08 7 months ago
The universe (or sum of all universes) need not be subject to infinite regression paradoxes to be eternal. Time is a local phenomena, at very small scales and very large scales it doesn't exist in the way it does at our level. Time flows backwards in some areas, branches off into other dimensions which cannot be compared to others in terms of before, after or during, and may even give birth to branches which lead to itself. Time is not linear everywhere.
luvdomus 8 months ago
@luvdomus
Then, let's deal with time as change! Infinite change cannot occur. Also, if your multi-verse always existed then change is not real but only an illusion. Are you claiming an eternal universe or multi-verse?
ChristianVoice08 8 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 Why can't infinite change occur? And why can't infinite repetition occur? And how can you define a universal time frame against which everything can be judged if there is no such thing as simultaneity due to the fact that light speed limits our ability to observe the present? The principles of physics work mathematically without regard to the direction of time. Past and future exist only in the sense of up and down, because of our proximity to the Big Bang. Read up on it.
eatmylogic 8 months ago
@eatmylogic
The Big Bang IS A THEORY put forward by a Catholic priest. Read up on it!
Secondly, you CANNOT traverse an infinite set OF ANY KIND. You cannot reach a point in space if you were actually trying to traverse a RAY let alone a LINE which are theoretical or potential infinite sets of points in space. You can't get to point A from any other point of an infinite set as the set continues to grow underneath you because as you traverse one point on the line or ray...
ChristianVoice08 8 months ago
@eatmylogic CONT
because as you traverse one point on the line or ray, there are still an infinite set of points to go. BTW, the BB theory is not an infinite set of anything. It calls for a finite time and finite universe as it is a START POINT of the universe. Also, you seem to think that the THEORY of relativity is a law. It is not! It is theory of the relationship of energy, mass and the speed of light. However, the speed of light is not necessarily a constant! You should read up on that.
ChristianVoice08 8 months ago
@ChristianVoice08 The Big Bang was proposed by several people, among them a Catholic priest-- it is not a "Catholic" idea. The rest of your post is gibberish, typical of the mentally ill. Good bye.
eatmylogic 8 months ago
Is this guy really a philosopher of religion? Because I see the religion, but I dont see the philosophy happening......
Landofjello 8 months ago
Are you going to make anymore videos or you just uploaded videos from this guy?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
This was an interview I shot. But, yes, I am uploading more videos shortly. I will be discussing other issues and doctrines not just apologetics.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Whats your view on God and time? There seems to be problems associated. Do you hold something similar to william craig of God was timeless before creation?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
Genesis 1:1 says God created time. So, yes, God outside time. if He is not, then, He is not self defined or a Cause that is needing no prior cause. He must precede all that is except Himself. I agree generally with Craig on this point.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 If timelessness is a necessary attribute and part of God's eternal nature, wouldn't that be a problem since God has put himself into time and taking on temporal existence? This would be God changing his eternal/necessary characteristics, something he isn't able to do (such as changing his nature of righteous to unrighteousness and being able to lie, etc..). He also isn't able to go back to being timeless.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
Not at all. Creating time does not mean you cannot step in or out of it or that you cannot manipulate it. The Creator is Sovereign over the creation. Please, email me if you have any more questions.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
I dont believe in religions i believe in being good to humans animals and nature ..
RELIGION makes me sick
hiewy 1 year ago
@joosepdotnet
I had 95+ average in Euclidean geometry! ALL A's in logic. And B+ in physics! I suggest you study the laws of physics and logic first! Any "new discovery" or hairbrained theory that violates the laws of EITHER simply can't describe the universe as it is. If such a theory violating the laws does describe the universe THEN the laws are false and we know nothing and science is useless given false premises - ALL ITS CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE FALSE AD INFINITUM
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
yes.. euclidean geometry is school geometry. i was talking about non-eucledian. nothing to do with logic nor eucledian geometry.
a ph.d should know this.. oh sorry.. you studied in a bible school.
joosepdotnet 1 year ago
@joosepdotnet
You insolent boob. A four year college of merit, still breaks down scores as A not just 4.0 as the 4.0 is a t-score derived from a 100 score system. But, I did study calculus, physics, marine biology and all IN HIGHSCHOOL before I got to a 4 year Major University in their pre-Med program! I NEVER WENT TO BIBLE COLLEGE! But, ad hominems are normal for professing atheists like you who bark loud but have no evidence and no valid argument.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
1. big bang theory tells us that time is not infinity. if i remember correctly the hubble constant told us that it started 13,75 billion years ago.
2. been studieng math for some years now. infinity is equal to infinity times 2. 1/10 times infinity is equal to infinity.
if this is hard to grasp, i suggest a different set.
lets take two numbers. 0 and 1. there are infinite numbers between them. you can always go smaller. maybe this is easier for you to grasp.
sorry i bursted your bubble.
joosepdotnet 1 year ago
@joosepdotnet
1. The BBT is only a theory and demands that everything came from nothing through an explosion of nothing triggered by nothing. It needs a God as no natural law demands that nothing can do anything.
2. I told that to other posters and they couldn't grasp it. They could not understand the ever expanding nature of infinity. AND NO, you merely proved the refutation of Zeno's paradox as do we. Infinite DENOMINATIONS-DENOTATIONS of space is not an actual real infinite distance!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
you should really look how modern science is built up.
its built up on theories that most suit the universe. if someone finds a better explanation, then the old gets modified or just changed for a better one.
everything is a theory.
cell theory, i hope you believe that. theory of gravity, thats a theory, i dont see you jumping off a building to show "its just a theory".
and it does not demand such things. you should really get a book on it, it seems the first one for you.
joosepdotnet 1 year ago
@joosepdotnet
AHHH, so you want me to join the cult of scientific naturalism which admittedly functions like the Mormon Church moving from error to error in hopes that some day truth might show up. What a laugh. The BBT DOES NOT explain the universe too well considering the basic laws of physics such as inertia. Clearly you haven't experimented with explosions which DECONSTRUCT and never lead to organization. Further, a theory is still just a theory!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 That you say it is 'just a theory' shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what a scientific theory is and the process involved to get it to theory status.
If, as you say in some other posts, that you spent 4 years at university level study, and you can still make that statement. then i humbly say to you, go back to where you got that education and ask for a full refund.
No, seriously.
PandoraAdventure 4 months ago
@PandoraAdventure
I am a biologist according to my friend who holds a PhD in Marine Biology. So, you say "I don't know the definition of theory. Laughable. What university did you attend? I went major university.
ChristianVoice08 3 months ago
@joosepdotnet
I'm not sorry I burst your bubble. Think!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
please don´t tell me that there are 2 Existences... wern´t do you? how is that he that "EXSIST" create the EXISTENCE? how is that something can create the existence? phahahah if god exsist then he didn´t create the existence, he was standing right there just like we do.
megustaelpingpong 1 year ago
@megustaelpingpong
Again, we do not claim that He created existence, that would be a contradiction as you point out. He created all created things, us, the universe, matter, etc.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
How is that God in the eternity could bring out something apart from himself, eternity has no time to happen something... and else what about the existence, if he exsist and we do also, What is separating us from his eternity?the no-being? the nothingness? And how could he create existence when he existed already?
megustaelpingpong 1 year ago
@megustaelpingpong
He did not create existence, just all things that were created. We state that He always existed and dwells in the "eternal moment". that is, outside of time as He is not time dependent. As He has no beginning or ending and does not change in nature, He is not time bound. We do not know how He could exist or His inner-workings (not that He has any). We must judge by His manifestation, power and His Word as to His nature. But, He demonstrated power over matter & death.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
If a real particle was infinite in number, by definition, it takes up space to exist. There could be no vacuums or unoccupied space in the universe. Therefore, if ONE SINGLE NANOMETER, ONE ANGSTROM is empty, there is no infinite set of real things! That is not an abstract, that is real science and real observation. You need GOD to have an infinite set. An infinite set could exist in an infinite mind! God could occupy all space including vacuums making for an infinite. Matter can't!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
NO, are you daft? Cantor makes my point. YOU don't get that Cantor wasn't arguing for the existence of a real infinite set! He was arguing for an uncountable set of numbers. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, Conceptual mathematics & reality. The universe has space called vacuum. Vacuum is claimed to contain no matter. An infinite set of matter would occupy an infinite space. Ergo an infinite number of real things does not exist and an infinite set of any subatomic particle does not exist.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
No, in order to have that be true the subatomic particle composing everything would by sheer volume force everything to be the same as the particles occupied space would not allow for atomic variance. VALID FORMAL ARGUMENT ONLY. NO MORE SIDE DEBATES. YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED THIS VIDEO.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
Last time, I never said there was a natural number, infinity or an integer for that valued symbol in an equation. But, there is a symbol for infinity and it does have a value, AN INFINITE VALUE! You don't know philosophy or logic and you are planting your flag on a non-issue. You have not proven your point and you waste my time trying to find me wrong in some side issue. No dice. Either prove the universe is eternal and time is eternal or quit wasting my time.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
This is still a moot point. If the universe were full of the same subatomic particle of infinite number, there would be no more room for anything else, unless you are going to claim a spirit realm embedded in the universe or outside it. Again, please, post a valid argument and number your premises. I see no value in debating an issue that has long been established as logically impossible.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
And infinity is a concept, a real value assigned in various disciplines of study. Some physicist hold the the size of the universe is infinity, the scale of subatomic particles is infinity small. Again, I am not trying to be insulting. Either post a valid argument that refutes the video or we have nothing more to discuss on this video. Please, number your premises.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
I never said infinity was a number. I pointed out that is isn't a number but a concept of infinite value denoted by a mathematical symbol. It is used in arguments and can be used in equations. I see now you lack of understanding of what we are discussing. if you don't understand that mathematics deals in conceptual not actual numbers at times, then, you don't understand that philosophy and physics debate real things and not just abstracts.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
Also, a course in philosophy, logic and comparative religion would be good, too. Just make sure your comparative religion professor isn't too biased either way. It is good that you question things and don't just accept something without critical thought. But, you need to understand the terms and values involved in philosophy and religion before attempting to debate the issues. Words don't even mean the same in different fields of study. You'll see that in those classes.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
If you haven't dealt with infinity in an equation, this discussion is over. If you haven't done calculus or physics, you don't know the terms or understand the values involved. I suggest you contact your highschool and complain about their propaganda program that denied you the opportunity to learn calculus and physics (both of which I was taught before college). You seem very bright. I suggest you do much more study before trying to debate these issues. You don't have the arsenal.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
Duh, they are uncountable and are considered equal in number to all other infinite sets. Hence the symbol for infinity used in mathematics. If an infinite set were countable, each would be represented by the default sum total number of their set WHICH DOESN'T EXIST as they are uncountable. Again, that's why we use a symbol and why they are equivalent in value.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
False, ja. Even if you had infinite velocity, you could not traverse an infinite set as the set would be equal numerically to the velocity and both would extend without end. Paradox kills that possibility as well. You don't seem to grasp infinity. AND, you have not answered my question of the impossibility of an actual infinite set of real things not overwhelming the entirety of space in the universe.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
An infinite set is uncountable as the numbers never end. It's value is infinity not a single number or integer. You don't seem to grasp infinity or the difference in abstract mathematics and real things. Physics is not theoretical in it's mathematics except in theoretical physics where it is speculation and not grounded in observation and replication.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
2-Logical. 3-Known that it cannot exist. If an infinite number of real things (one item only here not talking about infinite different things), there would be no room for anything else.
4-False, World views are philophical but THEY ANSWER questions about reality. If they don't they're an inadequate world view.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
You haven't taken a course in logic apparently. I was responding to your numbered item. You don't know relevance or fallacies and you don't know logical necessity. I am no longer amused but annoyed. Post a valid argument long form with numbered premises or I will block you. Anything but a valid argument from you is spam and petty bickering not argumentation.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Lastly, I really don't have time when you present no valid and true argument refuting the video's argument. You did not prove an error in any premise that would negate the conclusion. You present no evidence that the universe can be eternal. If you come up with a valid argument for this in future, post it in formal language. Until then, I don't care about Cantor's ideas. I am concerned with reality. I am not here to sell theories but deal in fact and logical necessity.Mental exercises r for fun
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
That is not an argument. Go take Logic 110 at least. No, you haven't proved that the universe could be eternal. You can't play off my argument to support yours. You have to prove that the universe is eternal or that it COULD BE ETERNAL WITH LOGICAL NECESSITY. And if Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche couldn't do it, YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T EITHER. Take a course beyond philosophy 101. And if you took 101, go back and slap your prof! He ripped you off.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
Well, amongst us logic students, it is a contradiction to compare unlike things or to consider things that are categorized by value or quantity as members of the same set if they are disproportionate or unequal in definition. That is, by definition, if a thing is not equivalent in nature and definition to be assigned to a set, it cannot be in the same set with a different thing. Further, this does not prove that a real set of infinites can exist. AND CONT
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
The definition of any infinite thing is that it is not bound and has no end or final count. Further your prior claim failed because it failed to understand that infinity in equations is equal. Ergo, any 2 variables that are infinite in an equation are equal and cannot exceed or surpass each other.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
CONT
AND, this does not apply to actual things as mathematics is the arbitrary assignment of values through numbers to measurements, quantities or variables. Mathematics deals in infinite theory not infinite reality. Like plan e geometry, a ray is infinite by definition but may not be a real thing. It is a mathematical construct with which we can know things about real things. No real ray has been found in nature. if so, cite it.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
I'm a scientist not an idealist. I love biology and physics and I interpret the universe as I perceive it. I do not superimpose my world view upon the universe in a contradictory manner as do atheists, pantheists, human secularists and most of all scientific naturalists (whose name itself points out a presupposition and internal contradiction).
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
Please, don't get me wrong. I appreciate your posting a rebuttal. Your posts reflect intelligence and thought. I just think you missed the point when applying mathematics (which deals with infinite ideas and concepts and such sets) with logic and philosophy which deal in defining reality with logical necessity and actuality. Unless you are an idealist, then, actual infinite sets cannot exist in reality. Again, space will not allow for an actual infinite set of real things.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
CONT
Time is a real thing in that is is measurable in change. To traverse time, you must endure infinite change.
I would recommend you view this in plane geometry. If you attempt to walk a geometric line, you can never reach the end as it extends infinitely in BOTH directions. It has NO start and no end. Therefore, no matter where you begin walking it, you cannot walk the entire line. Such is time if it were infinite.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
Atheists and others try to avoid this obvious contradiction of their billions and billions of years and the universe being eternal by trying to make time circular. But, that doesn't help. It merely further muddies the water. If time is not at all linear, then, there is no place for time. I studied basic physics and find no acceptable explanation of how the universe is perceived by us to be accurate if we attempt to make time circular or infinite universes real.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
False. The laws of thermodynamics demand that the universe is neither eternal nor infinite. The usable energy of the universe would long be used up if it were ions old. And, there is no incontestable proof that the universe is cyclic as no one has witnessed the cycles. Even worm holes & black holes are not proven. They are constructs of physics systems made by man. I believe the new theories are mythical constructs geared at explaining away the contradictions of atheistic cosmology.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
Such a construct of men, collapses under its own weight. It sounds cool in think tanks to try and imagine it and to draft formulas and equations to will it into existence. but, alas, logic kills it every time. Such theories always present with a contradiction either internal or a contradictions of the established laws of science.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
2. Yes, it follows if it is logically impossible to traverse an infinite set of actual points, then, that does follow. Further, you have not proven the logical possibility that an infinite set of actual ANYTHING can exist. AND, if any actual infinite set of real things could exist, then, where is the space for any other thing to exist in a universe filled with an actual infinite set of something.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
False. Time is basically change in nature ACCORDING TO SOME. You don't seem to know that philosophy and physics are concrete on what time really is. Some of us belong to camps that define time. Others in both fields will hold loosely to a definition. Time is not at all easily defined. If you come with a pet answer, you aren't fully informed as to the question of time. I can break it down into nanoseconds or molecular deterioration, BUT, a question still exists.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
No, there is disagreement in physics AND in philosophy over what time is. Most in the past considered time=change. Now it is again redefined. Provide citations that state that all agree on the definition of time. I have not attempted to fix the definition of time. You have. So, prove that there is a unilateral consensus on the definition in both fields (even though consensus does not establish fact and physics continues to change positions on the facts of reality).
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ja524309
Second, you misrepresent what I say. Don't put words in my mouth. God created time along with everything else that was created. HE IS OUTSIDE OF TIME! Therefore, we Christians are not on some theological clock. We ground time in physics terms!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
Can't see your other posts-ergo-replying to this one
If we both agree the universe obviously had a beginning like time, why are you wasting my time with false arguments?
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
Time is a real set of points. So, if you cannot traverse an infinite set of real points, time had to have a beginning.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
FALSE. I am not implying reverse traversal of time. I am stating plainly that the universe cannot be eternal with time as it would have had to traverse infinity to get to the moment now. Zeno's paradox of motion failed as it was predicated on mathematical infinite sets & not real infinite sets. BUT, a similar dilemma does apply to time as it is in physics measured in actual change of real things. It is an actual increment or measure of a real thing not a concept of infinity.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
@ja524309
1. Zeno didn't have to prove it. It is logically IMPOSSIBLE to do so. A Logic 110 student knows that.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
Comment removed
ja524309 1 year ago
one argument against infinite regress is that if time goes back forever it would take forever to reach the present moment so we could not be here. Hogwash. Its like saying the number one cannot exist because you would have to go through an infinite number of numbers to get from negative infinity to zero than infinite fractions to get from zero to one. But of course we all know one exists. Each moment just is what it is just as each number just is what it is.
Zurround100 1 year ago
@Zurround100
False. A real set of actual points in time is not to be confused with an infinite set of arbitrary points like the numeric systems. It is not actual but assigned. Time is real. False comparison = false conclusion
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
While atheism doesn't explain the origin of the universe, unlike Theistic religion it doesn't try to--I can admit what I don't know--can you, because it seems quite clear that you can't if your proposing something for which there cannot be any evidence for. It is not only illogical to suggest something independent of reality, which could then not be known (which you arbitrarily give immunity to the rules with which you derive it's necessity), but it does nothing to advance our knowledge.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
1. We do have evidence to support our world view (Jesus was a real person with real history).
2. A real world view answers the 5 most important questions (or at least tries to do so) such as where do we come from. You admit that you don't have a real world view just a bunch of questions. Hmmm
3. We do NOT suggest anything that is illogical, impossible or contrary to reality. You need to watch my vids & listen to Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, et al, to understand what we do say
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
1.Jesus as a historical person is not well established.
2.I can admit what I don't know, being able to fill that void with what you think is an answer is not a strength.
3.Omnipotence and Omniscience are illogical. A being of infinite complexity preceding everything instead of being the product of time is irrational and contrary to everything we see in reality. Being so arrogant as to think the vast universe was created for us is irrational.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
1. Evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. No respectable scholar is going to deny Jesus of Nazareth. I doubt you have studied Him.
2. You don't know what I know and project your own lack of knowledge on me. Don't presume to speak of what I "do not know"!
3. Give a valid and true argument against omnipotence and one the same against omniscience. They are not illogical! If you cannot provide the arguments, you are making ignorant claims like your last statement!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
1. Provide one contemporary account of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.
2. I'm sorry that because you view your beliefs as truth, that you would hold them as knowledge. But because it's a matter of belief, stating that you think it's an answer is no preclusion of what you know (just of what you think).
3.Intelligence is demonstrable through limitations, being unlimited because one is omnipotent renders intelligence indemonstrable and therefore nonsensical to preclude.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
1. The Gospels, Josephus, the epistles (letters) in the New Testament. Again, you demonstrate no knowledge of what you are debating. This is not a hobby or interest for me. I studied psychology, marine biology, and logic in college for 7 years. History was a hobby of mine in college, especially ancient history but if you want to dabble in philosophy, you better know history.
2. False claim! I do not believe! I speak of what I know.
3. False. Not an argument.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
The content of the bible is not contemporary, and Josephus as a contemporary account has long since been discredited.
2. Oh...that's just cute, I'll leave that alone.
3. Do elaborate.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
1. You don't know jack about the Bible. The NT is contemporary as it was composed by His contemporaries and completed prior to 73AD! Josephus was contemporary and you only asked for 1, I gave 26!
3. a-You failed to provide proof of your false claims about omniscience and omnipotence. b-intelligence is not limited by or delineated by limitation. Intelligence is not linked to potency. Intelligence is the presence of knowledge. If one knows everything, one is omniscient.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
Perhaps I'm lacking patience, but it seems abundantly clear that your either intentionally misunderstanding my comments, or are selectively reading portions of what I write. Because of this I am losing interest in discussing these things with you, but I'll give this at least one more try. "failed to provide proof". When did you provide proof of your claims? How can you demonstrate intelligence without defining parameters ie limitations? I'd like to hear that explained.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
It is not illogical to know everything. Name the law of logic violated or the argument (FORMAL ARGUMENT) that proves that a being cannot know everything. Oops, you have to prove a negative again...hmm seems like you constantly state negatives as though they're fact after I pointed out that you can't prove a negative.
But, I am out of patience and soon to be out of time. you have yet to present a valid argument let alone a true one just ignorant denials of inconvenient truths.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@EqualAndFree
NOT ASSERTIONS, logical requirements. The video proves that infinite regression is a logical contradiction. God says He is infinite and outside of time and He created time, ALL OF WHICH solve your dilemma that you would posit the magical appearance of the universe out of nothing to solve the glaringly obvious need to explain how the universe exists if there is no Creator to originate it.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@EqualAndFree
False. We clearly state that HE HAD NO ORIGIN. If God had a beginning, HE AIN'T GOD! He said He had no beginning and has no end. He is the I AM, in hebrew - I ever was and ever will be. He did not create Himself. Now you are just grasping at straws.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
'atheism fails to explain the origin of the universe'' So 'gawd dun it''
There was no time before the Big Bang.
He is talking in circles. You can't take 10% of infinite.
No one says the universe is infinite.
Nothing can't cause notithin is nothign but nothing is nothiting, WOW
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Not an argument. That is not the argument of the video. Make a valid counter-argument or go bug someone else, Greg. I don't hear any logic from you so far.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 "Atheism HAS EVANGELIZED BY THE SWORD unlike true Christianity"
Christianity wasn't spread by sword? There were atleast 10 major crusade campaigns and the organization was the Catholic church that carried this out and there was no other greater power. So you deity allowed a false religion to gain all power and control the minds of Europeans for 100's of years? Why is it that Christianity only seems to exist where the crusades took place?That should tell you something.
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296 The crusades. again you have this arse about face. The middle-east at this point was the richest, most advanced part of the known world, Europe was bankrupted from in-fighting. The crusades were primarily to cease land and wealth, the fallacy was that the ordinary people were coaxed into fighting, here is where the pope and the kings of Europe went AGAINST the teachings of Christianity to achieve their war. It was in VIOLATION of Christian teachings, but not atheistic survival.
sh3rv 1 year ago
@sh3rv ok so you tell me who the "true Christians" were .
I wanna know of 1 single denomination that didn't kill people in the name of god.
What is you denomination? Did this denomination exist all the way to Jesus?And how does you denomination not some how orginate with the same people who spread Christianity by the sword. And by the way neither Christianvoice08 nor you have explained why it was moral for Moses to rape women and children in Numbers 31:7-18
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
There is no command to rape women or children in that passage. That is a twisting made by yourself to prove a lie.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296
Let's hold all discussion to Yahoo and real time talking. We can cover more ground and I will take any scripture you want and we will examine line by line IN CONTEXT to your heart's desire. I am not at all worried. I think you will be surprised when we examine the words in real time and look at the whole chapter in context not pulling out a phrase here or there.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296
Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Zwinglians, Puritans, Quakers (were pacifists), Free Will Baptists, and some Professing Christian assemplies that have a few doctrinal issues who haven't killed Pentecostals, Assemblies of Christ and AO God, TO NAME A FEW. You don't know what you are talking about.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296 I dont have a denomination, i dont subscribe to the religion, my faith if based on the bible it self not on one groups views over another, I am simply a Christian because i believe and follow the teaching of Christ.
So you think every Christian has killed? if so answer me this, have they killed in harmony or in violation to the Christian belief ?
sh3rv 1 year ago
@jjason23296, lets compare:
Total all the murders/killing 'in the name of God' in the last 2000 years, we are looking at 10s of thousands, maybe 100,000.
Do the same for murders and killings in the name of atheism in the last 100 years only. we are looking at over 100 million !
And the difference, under atheism these killings are the logical out come, under Christianity they are an abomination.
By the way, look up Amish school shooting on how to be Christ like in a life or death event.
sh3rv 1 year ago
@sh3rv Your comparing the killing power of crusaders with swords to modern dictators with machine guns,biological weapons ,bombs,nukes, and missles and you don't think that it might be because of technology that people can kill larger amounts of people quickly compared to the medevil era? I hope you thought about this. Have you?
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296 i am so sick of your ignorance its actually painful now.
Starling killed millions of his own people without a single shot fired as did many of the atheist dictators. Its not the technology that enabled millions to die, it was the philosophy that humans are nothing more than animals. Dont bleat on about how killing is wrong or evil, you have no moral ground to stand on as your just a slightly more evolved chimp (fyi im aware of the non direct (relation).
sh3rv 1 year ago
@sh3rv If the number 100 million that you say was killed in the name of atheism was lower than that of the number who were killed in the name of religion or god would that mean atheism is true? If no then you have no basis or point .
Atheism does not offer a reason to kill. I wouldn't kill someone because i know there is no god? Thats like saying people who don't believe in Santa clause will kill people.
They killed people in the name of nationalism and marxist ideology not atheism.
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
I refuted your false claim about murderers above. You have not admitted to your error. I don't see how any honest dialogue is possible when everytime you make a false claim and are refuted, you make another different but equally false claim. Lying to avoid refutation is not debating an issue.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296 Atheism takes away the vale of life and the individual, so killing someone is the same as killing a dog, or a fly, why should it differ? If The philosophy of no God and humans evolved from snot as you hope if true, then if you piss me off i have no objections to killing you and your family, same as killing rats which may plague your home. God has given us value, a life which we cannot create and the spark of his divinity, it is wrong to kill because we belong to God, simple.
sh3rv 1 year ago
@jjason23296
THAT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY. I can claim to be a buddhist and be lying about it! If you claim to be of Jesus but disobey His commandments, HE SAYS YOU ARE NOT HIS SERVANTS!!! He said that He will tell those who say they did miracles in His name, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity. I NEVER KNEW YOU!"
Your lack of education is amazing. But, I told you I wanted an argument Jason. You seem incapable of making a valid argument.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
I realize that you wont accept the fact that Christianity was spread by the sword in most of Europe but your bible states rather clearly that the prophets killed and raped in the name of imperialism just like the Pope.
Numbers31:7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. hen the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
From now on, Jason. Don't post one of your claims about Christianity murdering without posting a valid source for the claim. I can claim there is an easter bunny, but, without a valid source for that claim it is just a claim or an intentional lie. Cite a source and don't state the obvious (i.e. that when you make a false claim that I will deny it). You have the burden of proof when you make a claim that contradicts known history.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
The problem is you don't get the point that it doesn't matter what you think is "True Christianity" because anyone can say what they want and hold any interpretation of Scripture and whether you agree with it or not it wont matter because your deity will not come down to earth to set the record strait. Religion makes people believe that other people are evil because they don't have the same delusion. I am telling you that Christianity is mythology and your deity will not stop me
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
NO, Jason. True Christianity is STRICTLY DEFINED in the New Testament books. It is plainly written and rewritten by authors from the disciples through the Catholic apostasy, again in the Middle Ages and the Reformation right down to early America. If you had gotten a decent private school education, your world history class would have laid out basic Christianity & explained the reformation. Even New Testament scholars that reject Jesus know what Christianity is.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296
Also, Christianity DOES NOT reign where the Crusades were fought. If you knew any history, you would know that Islam is the predominant religion in the areas where the crusades were fought. THe crusades were fought to stop the Western expansion of Suliman and other Muslim conquerors. I thank God the wicked Catholics fought the Crusades. I am glad I speak English and not Urdu or another Arabic tongue!!! Did you even study history in highschool? You should sue the school, man.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 yes but the crusades did not just fight off muslim invassion. They offensively invaded Jerusalem and killed Muslims and Jews and they killed Europeans who didn't believe in Christianity. If it hadn't been for the sword Christianity wouldn't exist. Your bible even demonstrates that violence is how your religion is spread. Moses and Joshua were king warlaord who raped and pillaged just like the crusaders and they took land that wasn't there in the first place.
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
Clearly, you didn't study history. They were a halting of Muslim expansionism and retaliation to Mulsim invasion of the "Holy Cities" in Palestine. The rich trade routes of pilgrims were sought by the Muslims in keeping with the practices of Mohamed who taught that robbing pilgrims of other religions was good. He used his raids to raise money and build power. If you study the history BEFORE THE CRUSADES to get it into context, then, the truth is obvious.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296 Why are you so against killing ? Can you answer for a secular point of view please and not be influenced by Christianity or other religions? i would like to hear your reasoning. thanks.
sh3rv 1 year ago
@sh3rv I am against killing because I don't want to be killed and I don't want my friends family to be killed because then i wouldn't have any one to talk to and it's not fun being killed. That is why .
My question to you is if you believed there was no god would you just turn into an animal and rape and kill your family? Are you that primitive that you can't do any thing with out a heavenly reward or the threat of punishment?? Thats how dogs live. (not all)
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
You have no justification to call murder wrong. So, you are borrowing from our world view to condemn it. For your claims to be true, God must exist and that refutes your base office.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08
No, your missing that you book is nothing but fairy-tales
Takua38000 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 You sound rational, but you're avoiding his question. So I shall repeat it for him, in capitals to make it clearer:
"IF THERE WAS NO GOD THEN WOULD YOU COMMIT MURDER?"
if no, then you have proved you have no argument.
if yes, then you have shown yourself to be a despicable human being.
But you raise a good point about calling murder "wrong". My answer is that I define anything that causes unnecessary suffering as "wrong", circumventing the need for a god-based definition.
TheAmaterasu42 1 year ago
@TheAmaterasu42
False, the video does not argue that AT ALL. It debunks that claim. But, it points out that you ARE living inconsistent with your world view when you ARE moral and atheist. Nietzsche pointed out that if there is no God, there are no rules and there was no legitimate reason for his contemporaries to "pick God's pockets" before throwing the body off the bridge. HE SAID that there are no moral values if there is no God. If I knew there was no God, I wouldn't not be concerned
CONT
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
CONT
If I knew there was no God, I wouldn't not be concerned with morals. I would be self-serving and survive no matter what it took. You can't argue for evolution/natural selection and morals. I can use Hitler's (nietzschean) "will to power" and take over a country! Just like Stalin, Mao and the other murderous leaders who took power by the sword. That is consistent with their atheism. YOU on the other hand CANNOT claim that morals EXIST if there is no God! No God-NO OBLIGATIONS to Anyone!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 Hitler killed in the name of God and thought what he was doing was right. Stalin and Mao killed to gain power, not in the name of atheism. They knew than what they where doing was wronge, they where communist, so they where the state and the state was "above god". If I kill 3 men robbing a bank and am an atheist, would I have killed in the name of there not being a god? Of course not. Your a religous moron, go into a hole and die so our spiecie can pogress.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000
FALSE! Hitler was a Hindu/occultist! If he believed in a god it was lucifer not JESUS! So, no, Hitler did not kill in the name of Jesus. Sorry. Do some history study before making such patently absurd claims. Also, debate on ONE page only or I will be forced to delete comments. You already brought this false argument up on another page. Keep it there! It has NOTHING to do with this video.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 Hitler was a Catholic, a christian.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
That is a lie. He was an Aryan by claim which is an occultist Hindu! Your lack of knowledge in these areas is starting to show. You need to research these matters FOR YOURSELF!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@jjason23296 But thats just it its your wants. What is 3 people want you dead, they out number you 3 to 1 so they have the majority, if they want you dead then why not?
Where do you get your value from? or your morals? if its just a case of wants then you are on very shaky ground here, im sure you can think of a better argument, come on give it a go, use that brain that God gave you.... think man, think !! : )
sh3rv 1 year ago
@jjason23296
THAT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY. I can claim to be a buddhist and be lying about it! If you claim to be of Jesus but disobey His commandments, HE SAYS YOU ARE NOT HIS SERVANTS!!! He said that He will tell those who say they did miracles in His name, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity. I NEVER KNEW YOU!"
Your lack of education is amazing. But, I told you I wanted an argument Jason. You seem incapable of making a valid argument.
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 Roman Catholic church that is self explanatory. The Septuagint was written in the same language that Constantine and the majority of romans spoke. it was the Catholic church that fought off Muslims from invading Europe. It was the catholic church that existed before all other organized christian religions. How can you believe that Constantine wasn't roman Catholic when his kingdoms government is the modern day catholic church and is stationed in Rome to this day?
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
The Greek Septuagint was written in GREEK not Hebrew and IS NOT THE BIBLE! The accepted texts are the Textus receptus in Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint is merely a translation of the Hebrew texts to Greek. Your claim is false again. Do you get your facts from a Cracker Jack Box? I am willing to block you if you won't present a valid argument not because of your opinions. I tire of hearing your opinion. I want to hear a fact based argument!!!
ChristianVoice08 1 year ago
@ChristianVoice08 The bible is translated from the Septuagint . Constantine wrote your scripture. You are just beating around the bush. Constantine created the first written scripture for Christianity. He was the emperor of Rome which is the same organization with ownership of the same assets and infrastructure that is now the modern day roman catholic church. There is no hebrew text of the new testament that existed before the greek Septuagint.
jjason23296 1 year ago
@jjason23296
That is patently false, Jason. Constantine DID NOT write anything Biblical. His nickname was the Old Pagan Wolf. He did not write the Bible. The Papyri predate him. A simple study of New Testament texts and basic ancient history would have revealed that irrefutable fact.
ChristianVoice08