Ravi Zacharias The Existence of God part 3 of 6

[aldousjove]

Is there going to be faith in the world when the Lord returns? thank God there still are men with this courage de defend the faith

[Rushyyz]

0:06 fail.

[barito7]

Argument 1: We don't know what happened prior to the big bang. No knowledge of the what was prior to the physical universe that spawned us does not prove God exists.

[jemmerx]

Why is it that it is not okay to have an infinite past series of events in the past (because we'd never traverse this infinte series of events to arrive at this one) but it's okay to have the singularity, and point in space of infinite density and heat, etc, etc? You have the same problem with this concept as the infinite events. No matter how much space expands, infinite density and heat will never be any less than infinite.

[wirechair]

What is time?

[TheWayandWordofLife]

PART 3: PART 2, and PART 1 are BELOW.... Sorry. :( Anyways, the same goes for accusations like Roman Catholic warmongers- false- the Church WAS NOT a true church- it was part of their government, and they did control the people through many laws, not just forcing everyone to go to church. Salem witch trials- people were obsessed with superstitions, and they twisted the bible to merge with intense superstition. These rulers morals, and actions were the complete opposite of how God wants us

[TheWayandWordofLife]

* PLEASE read my comments BELOW FIRST : I'm not trying to criticize  all of these brilliant people, and everything they say in these discussions are great truths- As an outside observer - I have seen hundreds of situations where the Creationist would have completely TRIUMPHED the discussion - Yet they Lost - because of not executing certain skills. Some of these are; Be much more assertive, thorough research on atheists hateful FALSE accusations about religions being evil ( have Historical

[TheWayandWordofLife]

RAVI: YOU ROCK! What a BRILLIANT MIND! Here is the man to debate Dawkins! Solid philosophy, theology, and scientific knowledge expressed in such an intelligent, and logical way. If a large group of great minds came together to present ALL areas of science, logic, theology, history, and philosophy, there would be an undeniable amount of evidence, and logic that clearly confirms the existence of a supernatural intervention, that brought EVERYTHING into existence! So many times I've watched discu

[FirearmsFreak]

@ Gatorkw... I'm not sure I understand how you can say that logically no belief system follows. Sure, many are not at all logically consistent, but some are more than others, and I would contend Christianity is most of all.

Regarding the "weak argument" statement... aren't we forgetting the logical law (maybe idea is a better word) of the First Cause or the Uncaused Cause? That logical idea fully deals with the idea of a god, yet does not fit the idea of Evolution.

[1988TheHitman]

We cannot argue people into heaven, there are 2 kinds of people in this world.......... Them who bow the knee to Almighty God and them who Dont. We all have the choice and no-one will have an excuse when Judgement day comes, Your either in or your out. Jesus died for ALL of man-kind and we must ask him for forgiveness of our sins, weather we like it or not we are all born sinners and have no hope of eternal life accept through JESUS! So ask him to save you from your sin and he WILL.

[Gatorkw]

my objection makes perfect sense. Logically no belief system follows. Therefore all of them have the same chance of existing. But evidence afterwards is very lacking for evidence of some sort of divine being controlling or even watching over our little pathetic lives here in our tiny lil spot in the universe. Yes we all want to believe when we die we go to a place and do a happy dance and drink milk and honey yet never hunger blah blah blah we know the story. But evidence tends = Evolution

[AbdielAbiram]

@Gatorkw

Again your irrelevance is astounding. What on earth does evolution have to do with this?

[mrhorvath321]

@Gatorkw Forgive my ignorance. The Christian says that god always has existed and that heis outside of time and space (the entire idea of a god in the first place). The evolutionist (or Hawking) says that the universe itself was created out of nothing and ultimately, just happened to exist. We call this evidence? If Christians are believing in 'blah blah blah' what in the world gives the right of the evolutionist to mock the Christian, when their starting point is just as tenuous?

[jgoltz37]

@Gatorkw I hope you know when you speak of evolution that there is only one type of evolution that is actually observable by science. This is called micro evolution. Like when a virus "evolves" into a new type of virus it is still a virus. A virus does not evolve into a non-virus. A Princess does not kiss a frog that turns in to a prince no more than a ape turn in to a man. Time, be it one or a million years, does not change one in to the other. At least in an observable manner

[Gatorkw]

@jgoltz37 What about billions of years? And our study of evolution is limited. But My statement was evidence tends to lead to evolution of some kind. Not some all powerful all caring deity created everything and everything works to that deity's will. I don't even remember what this guy said in the video it was so long ago and I'm not interested in watching that again. It is often the same old song and dance with these things.

[jgoltz37]

@Gatorkw You are correct in saying that our study is limited and that was pretty much the point. Every time I read in a science textbook "100 Million Years Ago....." I tend to think about how mind cannot even fathom that type of time span. They might as well say, "in a time long long ago, where we have no proof....." lol But keep up the research in to such things b/c one does have to come up with answers on morality and purpose and not just doubt all things.

[Gatorkw]

The first cause argument is weak and it is weak on all sides. What created the big bang? Well something out of nothing isn't logical And the matter of the Universe being eternal isn't logical. And Christians will pound on that. Yet the same lack things are of the Christian god. SOmething out of nothing? no doesn't work, always been here? umm no doesn't work. YOu see its a bad argument. But this man preaching to the choir, the people are quick to overlook his flaws.

[AbdielAbiram]

um...so.

Also, your objection does not make sense. The argument from the finite duration of the universe is not a first cause argument, so that is irrelavent in the first place.

[FadiY]

A cause is always causing at least two things, for example throwing a ball is causing many things to happen to the ball and the ball itself may become a cause for something else. This is exactly what has happened to the universe. There was a first cause and then the causes multiplied. The causes in the universe will continue to multiply until time, the movement of the atoms, stops.

[FadiY]

Now here is the thing, when we say "first cause" it means it is the first cause of the things that we can perceive. The first cause it self has to be transcendental and non perceivable (because remember we are trying to find out the first cause of what we can perceive, the cause to the causes we already know of).

[FadiY]

No scientist or philosopher to day would claim there is no first cause. The Big Bang is not a first cause simply because, if it is true, we could have perceived it when it happened and it needs a cause for itself, a cause we do not know of.

[FadiY]

Here is the bottom line:

1: THE RIGHT QUESTION IS NOT "WHAT IS THE FIRST CAUSE?" BUT "WHAT IS THE CAUSE TO ALL THAT WE CAN PERCEIVE?"

2: WE KNOW EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE.

3: NOTHING HAS ITS CAUSE WITHIN ITSELF.

4: THE CAUSE TO ALL THAT WE CAN PERCEIVE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN NOT PERCEIVE.

And that my friends ends the lecture of today!

[CLEVERBRA1N]

who threw the ball?

first cause makes no sense because you have to ask "What caused the first cause?" This leads to an infinite number of causes.

What if the ball hit you in the back of the head? Are you going to argue that because you could not perceive who threw it, a thrower doesn't exist?

[CLEVERBRA1N]

first real quick, if God created all, something out of nothing would not apply

God is an intrinsic input. Intrinsic value, intrinsic life, intrinsic love... Websters defines God as "Supreme". Therefore it cannot be argued that the eternal is illogical. Supreme by its very nature overrules logic. You cannot judge the creation of the universe "by God" and "by accident" with the same standard.

[mrhorvath321]

@Gatorkw I have to disagree. Someone is right, someone is wrong. I don't recall matter being able to create itself. You go all the way back to the very beginning, your two options are Hawking's proposition th at the universe(s) was created ex nihilo, or that God exists and created. Matter creating itself....God always being. I'll take God over matter creating itself, as stupid as it sounds to some.

[DandBMonk]

@mrhorvath321

Honestly, IDK if it's simply "matter created itself", because antimatter gives matter mass, yet matter is made of atoms, atoms are made of atomic particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons, these are made of subatomic particles called quarks and glueons...what makes these up are not yet known. It is believed that there is something quark matter that makes them up, but it is not yet known. They believe quark matter may exist in the core of extremely compact stars that haven't

[DandBMonk]

@mrhorvath321

collapsed into a black hole yet, but that's as far as science has gone, so it's not matter created itself, because matter is made up of other things. We "are" talking about the greatest mystery of all...where did existence come from. It's goes a lottt farther than most believe. I'm a Christian, but I am still on the lookout for what is to be discovered.

[DandBMonk]

@mrhorvath321

It's possible, like a photo, that we are positive images from negative material. What I mean is...matter is made of particles, and we consist of matter. Antimatter, on the other hand, is made of antiparticles. You can see the logic here, but still...it is up for debate and further research.

[philosophizer149]

@Gatorkw Ok look, we live in a temporal space in a physical universe, God is timeless, and non-physical. He doesn't apply to the same set of restrictions that our universe does, that is why He is called God!

[Gatorkw]

He is quick to assume, quick to point out the other sides assumtions and fails to follow his own rules. First cause argument. Nothing explains the cause of god. Self proclaimed doesn't work. Ali once claimed he was a bad man and would fight anyone. Well we find that was a lie when his country called upon him and he ran overseas to change his name from Clay to Ali.

[AbdielAbiram]

What? Ravi is simplifying the argument, however, No one, I repeat, no one has ever argued that everything has a cause. Also, first means...first, there can't be anything before first, so the first cause cannot possibly have a cause.

[bryanmac09]

I Appreciate Ravi Zacharias. He is the Leading Apologist of our Generation.