So much lack of understanding about the Bible and the nature of God. Not only in this video, but in the comments too. It's this 'I alone can determine what is right or wrong and God must adhere to my reasoning' attitude. Even with no understanding of God's Word it's ludicrous for anybody to put themselves on that level.
That's the bottom line, and that's why the majority of you people on YouTube that attempt to argue against Christianity are morons.
Numbers 31 shows that god is not loving. He ordered genocide, the killing of innocent children, and the sexual enslavement of young women! Nothing can justify that atrocity.
This whole thing that the apologetics are saying about stopping interbreeding to ensure the messianic line makes no sense because they kept the virgin girls alive to have sex with. What a bunch of bullshit.
To put it another way, you believe in the 4th demention I'm sure but before Einstein came along and had any way to scientifically test it, or even knew about it, did that mean it didn't exist? The intellect of men compared to God is like the intellect of of ants compared to humans. Nature proves God created the universe. You don't have to see God or be able to scientifically do a test on Him to know that.
God says you are without excuss because nature proves He exists. The very things you look at in nature to suggest evolution only prove that God created everything. You don't want anything to do with God, and therefore you have decided that if you can't see something or test it that it doesn't exist. That funny because you can't even understand the smallest building blocks of the universe (the Atom) or cure the common cold, and yet you think through your intellect you have the answers?
So, screwing around a little and belonging to the "wrong religion" is a worse sin than genecide? Actually, I've heard worse apologetics to justify Jehovah's acts - one excuse is that God has different ideas of what is good and evil, which is like admitting that God is evil. After all, we can only use our definitions when describing things - otherwise our words would be meaningless.
come on I'm a Christian and I know that only a fool corrects a fool. So on this matter I don't even try but I do dare ya. Ask God to prove himself to you and wait and see. If you aren't to afraid that he could be real. These other people are full of themselves. God is not going to get in an argument with you. A true Christian who understands the Grace of God wouldn't either. So on behalf of the fools who argue with you I am truly sorry. However don't forget my dare. Let me know how it goes
Then why were they allowed to keep the virgin girls? Wouldn't they corrupt the Israelites? Also, what verses in the Bible indicate that they are not human?
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God {Angels} went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
"Then why were they allowed to keep the virgin girls? "
I honestly can't say for certain but I can think of a few reasons. - women weren't soldiers - so they would not pose a threat of growing up to lead a rebellion. Also if you allow the corrupted gene pool paradigm . For someone who is most likely a Darwinist it is rather astonishing that you cant grasp that a corrupted trait - as in the case of the nephilim - would be passed on the male side - there are no references to female nephilim.
Numbers 13:3" We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."
In the land of Canaan - which is why they were afraid to fight and God made them rome for 40 years... They use other names as well Gibborim Rephaim etc.
They didn't have to survive the flood - they were conceived by fallen angels in the same manner as before.
First of all thats Num. 13:33, but I still see no reference to the Midianites in those verses. Second, to go back to one of your previous arguments, you said that there no female nephilim, but Num 31:17 has them killing the women who were not virgins. Since only males carry the trait (by your argument) there was no reason to kill them, other than sheer malice. As to you saying you don't know why they would keep the virgin girls, just use your imagination.
Numbers is the book quoted in THIS video!!! HELLO??? if referring to the people in the land of Canaan and it is AFTER the flood- so I don't understand your objection. I also pointed out that there are several other names used to describe the nephilim race. Perhaps you recall the story of David & Goliath? Goliath was one - way after the flood as well.
First of all, there was no test for virginity needed. Virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing or by cosmetic means ; The process of identifying the females who were not married and not prostitutes-sacred or secular, would have been straightforward. This wasn't not about sex slavery but lawful marriage and procreation!
you don't understand God, why would you belittle it? Why can you tell me that and not apply it to yourself? I'm telling you all this because I know for a fact that science cannot determine everything so therefore science is the weaker tool to reasonable faith.
"I know for a fact that science cannot determine everything so therefore science is the weaker tool to reasonable faith."
Hey, that's new! And remarkable. Are you seriously saying that faith is better at determining truth because there are a few things science hasn't explained yet?
Science doesn't explain everything, but believing that the Bible is the Word of the Creator of the universe is downright fucking FOOLSH. If YOU are a Christian, I will BELITTLE YOU whenever the fuck I WANT.
@FaithisNOTblind "reasonable" faith cannot determine anything. It makes no testable predictions, it is completely impotent. All it can do is blind you from reality.
If science is not the only thing to know truth, what else is there? We've already covered relativity. I don't doubt scientists progressing in the origins of life but what about the origin of the universe? Big Bang? what about before big bang? or before before big bang, certainly science cannot reach into a different realm to explain our existence, then where did that realm come from? what about the one before that, and that, and that???? Infinite causes are impossible without a starting point.
You're getting repetitive. There is no reason to postulate before the Big Bang. You could make up any scenario. I believe that before the big bang, the universe was an onion bagel shaped like a tractor. It's meaningless.
My template: One truth, One Sovereign God, One purpose in life, God is absolute.
Your template: observational experiments, science is progressing, truth is relative, science is the absolute truth to life.
you keep on saying science is progressing, ok it is...but what you're absolutely implying is that "science is the only way to know of our truth and existence." If that is true, what scientific method did you use to come up with that truth???
The claim that "science is knowledge of truth" is a self-refuting claim. Therefore, truth can be known without the use of science as well. I know that I have a brain, but if I can't see it, then I don't deny that I have a brain. If truth can only be known by science, then if I don't deny that I have a brain... I must open up my skull to see that I really do have a brain and therefore to know that "having a brain" is true.
"but what you're absolutely implying is that "science is the only way to know of our truth and existence." If that is true, what scientific method did you use to come up with that truth???"
Stop it, you're killing me.
I'm saying that science has a proven record of showing truth. I'm not implying anything absolutely. Stop with the word games.
Sorry, it's not the same thing. You try and make the argument that the other side claims that we came from space goo. I don't try and claim that you believe in the FSM.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that you should belittle it. There are very intelligent people doing complex research on origins of life, and none of them say that we came from space goo.
i never said or was futile towards biology. What does that have to do with anything? I know we are complex creatures, and still this complexity came from space goo. Oh what a leap of faith.
"That doesn't even make sense. It is impossible to refute logic? What does that mean?"
"relative truth" ring a bell? Logic says that "truth about our existence" cannot be relative, when you and I die, I'm flying through the cosmos while you cease to exist. I know that's how I would want it, my soul flying through the cosmos. but will that happen? Does logic say it will happen like that? of course NOT! My feelings will not make it real. Does that seem logical to you?
If you don't claim to disprove God, you are at the most agnostic. Atheistic claims cannot be substantiated by science cuz science cannot disprove God.
What is the object of your argument? To discredit God? To bring down Christianity? To prove yourself intelligent? To explain life, or to explain life without God? If we are just mere biological machines we would not be debating on Youtube.
God, Yahwee, Vaajtswv, call it whatever you want, but that's the only other explanation, the only other alternative. science or God? Science cannot determine what happens to the conscience after death. To say that it's just the end of biological entities is just as cruel as you claiming that "I use God to fill the gaps of science." It's not a word game, its logic and if you can't refute logic, which is impossible, than I don't know what to tell you.
"Science cannot determine what happens to the conscience after death."
Well, science can determine what happens to the brain after death, which is that it stops working. Thus it would make sense that when we die, we're dead and done.
"its logic and if you can't refute logic, which is impossible, than I don't know what to tell you."
That doesn't even make sense. It is impossible to refute logic? What does that mean?
So our existence is a mere self-perception? Wow, in that case how come I don't see flying pigs and candy canes growing out of the grass? Feelings are relative, yes I give you that, but the truth about our existence is NOT relative. Your notion of relative truths sums down to "you only believe what you believe because of your personal perception." You believe that evolution and science is truth to existence, you don't understand how everything I've been telling you compliments each other.
Gee, is that what I said? Let me check... Whoops, nope, it wasn't.
You know, it would be much easier if you would reply to the specific comment you are addressing. Otherwise I have to scroll all over the place to try and figure out which of my comments you were misinterpreting.
"you don't understand how everything I've been telling you compliments each other."
Which things? Your meaningless logical absolutes, your word games and your God of the Gaps argument?
If you want to believe that there is a Prime Mover who began the universe and created life, that's fine by me. There just isn't any reason to believe in such a being other than our lack of scientific progress.
Logically I can say that there is one infinite entity, one supreme sovereign ruler above all finiteness. One autonomous eternal being above all. There are two kinds of people in the world, ones who proclaims the truth and ones who suppress the truth. The infinite entity cannot be disproven therefore one cannot claim that it does not exist.
We don't have to call it God, or anything of a religious nature, but I hope you at least established to yourself that there is an infinite entity that pulled finite biological bodies, nature, and the laws of nature into existence. to be cont.
"A monotheistic god is the best explanation for you, because that is what you seek."
I don't believe in alien experiments to clone humans, I don't believe in polytheism (many gods) or anything from a science fiction film to explain life. Plausibility and logic has its effect on my convictions of a monotheistic God. If there are spiritual activities of many entities, who or what is the authoritative figure above them? Or who created them? or who created the one who is supreme to them? cont.
How're the gaps getting smaller to disprove God? You cannot claim a universal negative unless you have all the evidence to substantiate that claim. How is the expanding universe the work of itself? How are cells able to function together to repair it's organ? Where did the cell get its functioning organelles? Evolved from what? space goo? what's above space goo? how did it get there? it can go on forever...Certainly not of itself. Biological entities cannot possible by autonomous of itself.
1. I do not claim to disprove god. Never have, never will.
2. Your claim is that since science hasn't solved the problem of abiogenesis, that God is true. Fine, use god to solve a problem that science hasn't figured out yet ... wait, there's the God of the Gaps again!
"It's God of the Gaps, but the gaps are getting smaller and smaller."
You don't understand anything beyond the "creationist vs. atheist" arguments. Evolution is from species to species, not from space goo to human. Many animals on Earth share similar attributes but evolution likes to link these animals together to form an ancestral chain.
"Truth is relative" is a self-destructive, self-refuting claim. Read it over and over again until you understand it. The Laws of Logic cannot be refuted. truth cannot possibly be relative to an individual. Your red car is not blue to me. So how is truth relative? If truth is relative, than you assert that that is absolutely true. Then it is not relative at all since the truth is that "truth is relative."
Really? Are you that dense? Why are you so obsessed with word games? If I say that "truth is relative", that does *NOT* mean that I believe *EVERYTHING* is relative. My red car is red to you, and to everybody else. New York is East of California. The Sears Tower is taller than my house.
However, other "truths" are relative - how we perceive the world, what we feel about it, how we react to it.
I'm glad we agree that there is only "one truth" because "relativity in truth" cannot possibly be true. If your car is red to you, it is not blue to me, it is also red to me. Your red car is an absolute truth, yes I'm human and that is also absolute truth. but there is also absolute truth to life, in general.
And absolute truth in life cannot possibly be "scientifically observed" as discussed earlier. If truth ends at the Big Bang, then anything beyond that cannot be true. What is wrong with that statement? If only observational evidence can determine truth. I know you didn't claim that but it is a fundamental atheistic claim that science is the best tool to determine life. But logic cannot be refuted. A singular, monotheistic, god is the best logical explanation. cont.
Do you know how to read? When did I say there was only one truth? I believe in relativity. You should look at the comments more closely before you post.
So you're suggesting that only "observational evidence" can determine what's true? That's a self-destructive claim. What "observational scientific method" did you use to come up with that truth? If you can't observe what caused the big bang, or what caused that caused the big bang, or what caused that caused that caused the big bang, and so on, then u can't know that "observational evidence" is the only way to know truth because of infinite regression.
Because anything prior to the Big Bang cannot be observational, well you say that science is getting there, well what about before that, and that, and that and so on... an infinite amount of matter-producing universes, or cosmic births cannot possibly be observed by nature and by logic. Finite existence came about by an infinite entity, is the best logical explanation.
In general, I would say that observational evidence is the only real way we have of determining truth. What else is there?
Anyway, I fully expect that there is a point at which scientific discovery will be stopped. That doesn't mean that the scientific method is flawed, or that you should jump to supernaturalism. Just that there are limits in the universe. Nothing wrong with that.
"Only that which you can test,along the lines of science."
I would say "Yes", although I'm not fond of absolutes.
"Anything beyoind logic,rational, and reason,i.e.God, is out of the question?"
Well, for me it is. I'm not foolish enough to say that it *can't* exist, or even that it *doesn't* exist. But nothing in my life has given me reason to believe in any of it.
Monotheism vs. polytheism...do you need me to get into details or do you want me to send you a link where you can find info about this issue where Monotheism (one God) makes the most plausible logical sense.
If there exists a supernatural entity, I would believe that there is only one, for this reason: If there were more than one, then they would potentially interact with each other, and those interactions would be something that we would be able to notice.
As it is, if there is a supernatural entity, it has managed to hide itself so brilliantly that it is nearly impossible to detect.
If you agree with me about "absolute truth" and have that established, then we can identify what that absolute truth is. That's why I got into saying stuff about polytheism vs. monotheism. Science can only go so far, you and I agree, and it's time to take on logic...cont.
I do not agree with you about absolute truth. And I think using logic to discuss God is foolish and tiresome. You can not make up a proof to prove or disprove god.
To say that you don't believe in an absolute truth is self-refuting. That is your absolute truth. Well you say that ok, now truth is relative. My truth is relative to me and yours is to you...admit it, it all boils down to that in logic, set aside science and think for a minute. So if "truth is relative," then that absolute statement is not relative at all. cont.
I put quotes just so you can tell what common statements are being made to the simplest.
Do you really believe that God can be proven or disproven with word games?
[sigh]
"To say that you don't believe in an absolute truth is self-refuting. That is your absolute truth."
Wrong. And wrong. Saying "I don't believe in absolute truths" does not mean that I hold that as an absolute truth. Furthermore, if I then say, "I absolutely believe my car is red." will that show that I believe in absolutes?
"My truth is relative to me and yours is to you...admit it, it all boils down to that in logic,"
That is what I believe. Many things that are true to you are not true to me. Many things are true to both of us. Many things are true to neither of us.
But all of that is simply because we have language, and can play with it. Our way of talking about the world does not affect how the world really is.
Any scientist can tell you that the universe is dying. Death is it's long-term fate. Death is just the nature of things.Stars die, planets die, etc....Do I need to get into details?
Do you understand what happens when a star goes supernova? The explosion of a star releases vast amounts of heavier elements into the universe, and those elements are the building blocks of the universe. The shock wave created by a supernova going through a hydrogen cloud is the beginning of the process which creates a star.
The "death" of a star is necessary for the creation of new stars.
To say that "there is no absolute truth" is self-refuting. You're stating an absolute.
To say that "there are no absolute morals" is self-refuting, where did you get the moral authority to make that judgement?
Laws of Thermodynamics confirms that the universe is dying, so the claim that the universe is eternal is invalid, as confirmed by science. Entropy states that every biological machinery is dying, using up energy and lesser and lesser energy as it ages. cont.
I do not say "there is no absolute truth", nor do I say, "there are no absolute morals". I don't believe in them, but I make no specific claims about it.
You do not understand the laws of thermodynamics. Please state specifically why you believe that the universe is dying. Why do you believe that I think the universe is eternal?
Entropy is not a problem for evolution. Do you understand that the earth is not a closed system?
"If you don't believe in them, why don't you say "there is no absolute truth.""
How would I have the power to make that claim? I don't believe that there are pink unicorns on Venus, but I don't have the ability or knowledge to prove that point. It's a subtle distinction, so you probably won't get it.
"So we have established a deity. Self-contradictory."
What? How did we establish a deity? Again, you make no sense.
I'lll reason with you, to deny the existence of God is to say that "there is no absolute truth." Absolute truth cannot be of this world because science claims that everything has a cause and effect. if u see a rock, where did it come from? How did rock molecules bind together to make a rock? etc. the list goes on and on and on.... cont.
You say: "if u see a rock, where did it come from? How did rock molecules bind together to make a rock?"
I've already stated that the best argument you have is beginnings. Scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang. Scientists can't tell you exactly what caused life to begin on earth.
When you think about it, it's amazing how far back scientists have pushed the boundaries of knowledge.
OK Mister Athiest guy you, let's stop talking about rhetorical stuff, how are you gonna disprove the existence of a deity. Let's break it down even further. How is science suppose to disprove of a deity?
It's easy to call anyone delusional, sort of like if my buddy tells me that there is a huge gold fish swimming in a little pond that I only knew to have minnows. I would think he's delusional too, but there actually was one when I actually looked for it, it took hours but I really did see one leap out of the waters. Childhood memories back in the days.
The stories in the Bible are not delusional driven fictions to try to prove God as you would wish but rather a self-reflection. You're one of the people refusing to enter into the ark because you would rather rely on science to make your life meaningful. As I said science cannot prove everything to be true because logic has that in place.
Hey, you're getting somewhere! The Bible is a self-reflection. It was put together as a collection of the understandings of one group of Middle Eastern nomads. It shows how they viewed the world. It's content reflects beautifully the world that they lived in. The stories are most likely based on real events.
yes the Bible was written by at least 40 authors as confirmed by original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. You haven't answered any of my questions from earlier posts. you just have a bunch of questions that apologetics can answer but you can't disprove of a deity.
Like I said, make a new comment with specific questions, and I'll answer them. Maybe you don't realize this, but your comments are all over the place and sometimes hard to understand. If you simply ask a question, I'll answer it.
Then stop rambling and throwing out garbage. You make a ton of posts, and I'm going to correct your glaring mistakes first. I will answer anything you want if you pose it intelligently. Half of your questions seem like rhetorical ones. If you want a discussion, then settle down, simplify, and ask specific questions. I'll answer them.
Noah's ark was a leave way from self-destruction. I'm pretty sure that word went around the world about Noah's flood because people talk. Just as now the word of
Christ has reached the whole world, people still refuse to come to His saving grace.
That makes sense. If I was living in China, and I found out that some guy I had never heard of, in some place that I had never heard of, was building a boat because some God I had never heard of was going to destroy the earth, I would definitely believe it.
The neat thing is that you *have* to believe crap like that. Because if you don't, then you need to admit that your God is a mean, mean guy. Kinda funny.
there were no Chinese people back in Noah's days anyway. God did not part languages until after Noah's flood during the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. Funny how you mentioned that if you were a Chinese person living in China not accepting a foreigner's preaching, if that's the case then why is there a huge Chinese Christian population?
You say: "Funny how you mentioned that if you were a Chinese person living in China not accepting a foreigner's preaching, if that's the case then why is there a huge Chinese Christian population?"
That is a complete logical fallacy. One is not connected to the other in any way. It would only be valid if *every* person in China is a Christian. Which is not the case.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I hope that answers your question. I can get deeper into it. God doesn't exist because of why?
You've seen the countless galaxies in the universe, you've seen all the animals in existence (theory of evolution cannot substantiate this claim) and I've reasoned with you to the fullest logically, but you are still trying to explain away God. why are you an atheist, if you don't mind me asking.
OK, you are definitely a bit odd. I ask you a specific, easy to answer question, and you go on about the galaxies of the universe? And then you say that you have reasoned with me logically. Um, no, you haven't.
I am honestly curious about when you believe Noah lived. Will you answer the question?
The Bible is not specific on dates, just like it is not specific on science, but it has some verses that is closely related to some laws of nature, etc. Noah's time would be estimated around 2300 B.C.
what a stereotype to third world countries! So you're implying that the Chinese is not capable of trying to find truth, Chinese people have no curiosity. that's what drives them into the truth, it's their curiosity, not their stubborn claim that the universe just happened out of random. If I was Chinese, my curiosity would lead me into establishing a deity. Now it's time to identify that deity. cont.
So we're up against polytheism (many gods) and monotheism (one God). Aliens, cloning of humans, anything you can think of science-fictionally, all falls under polytheism (many gods, or many activities, or claims outside of this world.)
Buddah, the Jude0-Christian God, Allah, all fall under monotheism.
"what a stereotype to third world countries! So you're implying that the Chinese is not capable of trying to find truth, Chinese people have no curiosity."
What the hell? I have no idea why you would say that.
Anyway, why do you believe that China is a third world country?
I said that because that was your intent. You said that if you were Chinese, you would reject a foreigner preaching to you. That's just common sense, but it is not the truth. So you're implyng that the Chinese are incapable of finding truth.
God is ABSOLUTE! Absolute love is giving man a free will. If God created you upholding you to Him only, that is not absolute love. Absolute love demands a will. Absolute love is to die for someone you care about. God cares about you. He died on the cross in the flesh as Jesus. The highest level of love from man to God is to sacrifice his only child. But God did not require us to do any sacrificing, He did it all symbolically as Himself dying for man, and giving up His only son Jesus.
Man cannot die for an eternal God, so the ultimate love for man is to sacrifice his only son for Him. He demonstrated this through Abraham and his son Isaac. So an all loving God died himself and gave his only Son, just so man can live in eternal comfort. That's divine ultimate absolute love.
On the Phelps again...its like they took the basic understanding of Christianity and perverted it in their own ways and their own practices, you've ever noticed them out preaching their garbage with no Bible?
And Shirley Phelps's family are people who do not practice the biblical Christianity. God hates sin, not man. The correct way to practice faith is to warn people of sin and turn away from it through God's love and mercy for man in Christ Jesus. Hell exists to reflect God's absolute justice. To cease to exist is not absolute justice. Absolute justice demands eternal punishment.
God is absolute! To say that "there are no absolute truth" is self-refuting. You're stating an absolute.
God is eternal! Laws of nature do not apply, God sees my life and yours laid out in front of Him past, present, and future. laws and theories includes thermodynamics, entropy, time, gravity, etc.
To say that "there are no absolute moral" who gave you that moral authority to make that decision?
God warns people all the time about self-destruction, after all everyone's gonna die one day, God warned those to turn to Him but they choose to go opposite, "self-destruction." So God orders self-destruction to reflect His eternal justice, but it's not like God did not provide a leave way for those people. God always does, just like He offered Christ as our leave way from the destruction of hell. I hope that answered some questions you have mister Atheist.
Just like God provided a leave way (an ark) for the people during Noah's time. The flood was going to bring destruction but people don't care and died because they chose to. They knew they were warned.
I can't remember - which verse mentioned that God told every person in the world about the flood? I know the people by Noah knew, but what about people living in Africa? China? Were they warned?
It took Noah 120 years to build the ark and preach salvation for the human race (the ark which is symbolic of Christ, today it's Jesus Christ)from self-destruction (the flood in Noah's days, and hell today). 120 years is a lot of years of preaching. I take it that Noah told every living person at the time about the flood to come.
No I'm not delusional like you would like me to be. How is scientific convictions, universal logic and reasoning suppose to make one delusional? You tell me!!! I'm not trusting a God blindly like most atheists would assume. I have reasons of convictions that God is almighty and that He is what's holding this world together.
also, this was the beginning step in leading up to teh coming of Christ. Israel had to get to the promised land. the law of Christ and love supersedes teh instructions of Israel in teh era of Moses and Jacob
its not that God didnt love the people he had the Israelites kill, but this was the first step in setting up for Jesus, and he was going to save more ppl by the means of Jesus than by sparing those ppl. he made teh statistically correct choice
can't make an omelete without a few genocides?all knowing and all powerful,but the guy can not work out a way to save humanity that does not involve killing killing all but the virgin females?i hope you are never standing over a male child.sword in hand,telling him that his death is the statistically correct choice.
they were the one holy community of faith. these directions are consistent with Deuteronomy 12. God was taking steps to remove the impurity from around Israel, so it would not be a threat to them. and by doing so they had to get rid of all impurity around them so they would 1)not be attacked by surprize by past war competition and 2)fall into sin with impure things. God didnt necassarily love them more but Israel had a higher calling and RESPONSIBILITY. God was tough on Israel.
hm.tribal community of faith eliminating tribes that worship other gods.now where have i heard that before,oh yes i recall now!pretty much all of human history!thanks for clinging to the oldest excuse for genocide ever.ditto on "eliminating impurity"hell people still use that one in modern times.you sound like you could have been a speech writer for hitler or had a radio show in rwanda.the clasics really do not die.
"not be attacked by surprise by past war competition".yup i have to admit that killing someone down to the last male infant would be pretty effective at that.utterly abhorrent to anyone with a conscience,but effective none the less.
the culture back then in midian and surrounding areas would obligate those children, when they grow up, to avenge their fathers' deaths. and Israel had the most important calling on Earth at the time. if the Jews were destroyed, it would wipe out any chance of people following God. God was willing to use any means necassary to preserve that and apparently God saw that as necassary
ah so genocide's acceptability s purely a relative thing based on local colture according to you.does that mean that arbic coltures are still allowed to do it to this day to one another since both parties as a rule hold to the idea of blood debts and family obligations of vengeance?you are also describing god as a pragmatist on not an idealist here.does god have a fixed moral code?re does the end always justify the means for him,no matter how vile?
he still knew that Jesus was going to come. he still had that plan for him. and im not saying its ok to have to avenge your fathers death with blood. but im saying that Israel had to erase all possibilities of that happening to them
genocide as a preemptive strike?not even g.w.bush has sunk that low.nice to know that you think it is ok to slaughter children based on what they might do.
god should probably not have given me the capacity for critical thought then.that i would not apply critical thought to the idea that some people say is central and all important to life seems faintly ridicules to me.your god seems like the reflection of his times,not something that stands beyond time.another excuse by primitive man to enslave and kill those around them,all the while calling themselves a chosen people.
i guess more commands for genocide could come at any moment then.sorry but the "god does not change"thing remains pure rubish.the shift from old testament to new is so radical it could better be call schizophrenic.
its not God. the ppl changed. thats why his instructions changed. cultures change. his love will always be the same. he may change his plan up for certain ppl based on prior decisions or paths they may have taken, but he is the same loving God. its not fair that he has to alter his plan for us. it should be the opposite. it shouldnt have to be that way, but he is a loving and merciful God, so im not gonna critisize him on that.
so god is just unchangingly wishy washy?ever a crowd pleaser he just promoted slavery and and genocide until people were at last in the mood for jesus?then at long last the love started flowing that he had been holding back?pull the other one it has bells on.
what? no. he has always loved. hes not wishy washy. hes our helper. he will provide new paths for ppl to take. its not to please them, its to help them. some roads arent easy for them to take, but its for their own good
well God does know best. but i dont understand how any scientifically educated person cannot believe in God. the odds of this universe being created without intelligent design is something like 1/trillion trillion trillion trillion. i dont understand how anyone can put their money on the those chances
"i dont understand how any scientifically educated person cannot believe in God"
So says the person who is *slightly* scientifically educated. Trust me - a full scientific understanding makes God highly improbably at best.
Yes, the odds of the universe ending up as it is are staggering. However, once the universe started, there had to be *some* outcome. This is just one of a nearly infinite number of options.
Imagine a deck of cards. Shuffle and deal them out in a line, 52 cards long. The odds of any one set of 52 cards turning up are a billion to 1. Yet, I can guarantee that once you've turned over the 52nd card, you do have an order.
Looking at the cards after you dealt them, you can say, "Wow, the odds of this order of cards are staggering. The order *must* have been designed." Yet, you know that it was random.
Thanks. I know that it can be difficult to try and express ideas in this limited space. However, the fact that you don't understand it makes me believe that an understanding of science and probability isn't exactly your strong suit. That's fine - just don't go around saying things in areas that you don't understand.
1 out of 52 highly probable, yes. If you look at fine tuning, a slight variant in any laws of nature results in no life. Answer this, if we dont know what caused the Big Bang, or what caused that caused the big bang, and so on...that is highly improbable that the universe can exist due to infinite regression, but the universe does exist, a universe that is dying as confirmed by the laws of thermodynamics, so the universe cannot be eternal, this finite life was created by an infinite entity.
how is science suppose to make God improbable? That is boiling your statement down to "science is the only way to know what's true." What scientific method did you use to come up with that absolute? Your claim is self-refuting closet atheist guy you.
The more you learn about science, the more you realize that God is not necessary. Your strongest place to argue is beginnings - the origin of life or the universe. Everything else? Pretty much God free.
How is learning science suppose to make you not need God? How is the complexity of a machinery in a single cell suppose to deny a higher truth? How is the cosmos suppose to render God improbable? If anything, it's suppose to make you glorify an almighty creator. What logical basis do you structure that claim around that "science can prove the inexistence of God?" There are none. Logic says it itself that "science cannot prove everything to be true."
Note - when you put something in quotation marks, it implies that your are using a person's direct quote. You write: What logical basis do you structure that claim around that "science can prove the inexistence of God?"
So much lack of understanding about the Bible and the nature of God. Not only in this video, but in the comments too. It's this 'I alone can determine what is right or wrong and God must adhere to my reasoning' attitude. Even with no understanding of God's Word it's ludicrous for anybody to put themselves on that level.
That's the bottom line, and that's why the majority of you people on YouTube that attempt to argue against Christianity are morons.
ascuba5 2 months ago
Numbers 31 shows that god is not loving. He ordered genocide, the killing of innocent children, and the sexual enslavement of young women! Nothing can justify that atrocity.
saxabass 6 months ago
They should change the name of "CARM" to CRAP
apple2018 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See my video about this.
JehovahsDayIsNear 1 year ago
This whole thing that the apologetics are saying about stopping interbreeding to ensure the messianic line makes no sense because they kept the virgin girls alive to have sex with. What a bunch of bullshit.
tuberofyou1 1 year ago 2
To put it another way, you believe in the 4th demention I'm sure but before Einstein came along and had any way to scientifically test it, or even knew about it, did that mean it didn't exist? The intellect of men compared to God is like the intellect of of ants compared to humans. Nature proves God created the universe. You don't have to see God or be able to scientifically do a test on Him to know that.
7777Ralph 1 year ago
God says you are without excuss because nature proves He exists. The very things you look at in nature to suggest evolution only prove that God created everything. You don't want anything to do with God, and therefore you have decided that if you can't see something or test it that it doesn't exist. That funny because you can't even understand the smallest building blocks of the universe (the Atom) or cure the common cold, and yet you think through your intellect you have the answers?
7777Ralph 1 year ago
So, screwing around a little and belonging to the "wrong religion" is a worse sin than genecide? Actually, I've heard worse apologetics to justify Jehovah's acts - one excuse is that God has different ideas of what is good and evil, which is like admitting that God is evil. After all, we can only use our definitions when describing things - otherwise our words would be meaningless.
averagebear1 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
the men were also evil.
9-11 was not God's will. it was the will of evil men.
bluecowboy27 2 years ago
come on I'm a Christian and I know that only a fool corrects a fool. So on this matter I don't even try but I do dare ya. Ask God to prove himself to you and wait and see. If you aren't to afraid that he could be real. These other people are full of themselves. God is not going to get in an argument with you. A true Christian who understands the Grace of God wouldn't either. So on behalf of the fools who argue with you I am truly sorry. However don't forget my dare. Let me know how it goes
brendakaymin 3 years ago
More stunning ignorance displayed by an A-tard.
They weren't humans you ignoramus. They had been genetically corrupted by Fallen Angels.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
Then why were they allowed to keep the virgin girls? Wouldn't they corrupt the Israelites? Also, what verses in the Bible indicate that they are not human?
Dugpowd 3 years ago
Genesis 6:
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God {Angels} went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
"Then why were they allowed to keep the virgin girls? "
I honestly can't say for certain but I can think of a few reasons. - women weren't soldiers - so they would not pose a threat of growing up to lead a rebellion. Also if you allow the corrupted gene pool paradigm . For someone who is most likely a Darwinist it is rather astonishing that you cant grasp that a corrupted trait - as in the case of the nephilim - would be passed on the male side - there are no references to female nephilim.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
The problem with your argument is that the nephilim were killed in the flood:
Genesis 7:23-
And every living substance was destroyed...and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Anyway, if there were some of these nephilim left, what are the verses that identify these specific people as such?
Dugpowd 3 years ago
Numbers 13:3" We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."
In the land of Canaan - which is why they were afraid to fight and God made them rome for 40 years... They use other names as well Gibborim Rephaim etc.
They didn't have to survive the flood - they were conceived by fallen angels in the same manner as before.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
First of all thats Num. 13:33, but I still see no reference to the Midianites in those verses. Second, to go back to one of your previous arguments, you said that there no female nephilim, but Num 31:17 has them killing the women who were not virgins. Since only males carry the trait (by your argument) there was no reason to kill them, other than sheer malice. As to you saying you don't know why they would keep the virgin girls, just use your imagination.
Dugpowd 3 years ago
Numbers is the book quoted in THIS video!!! HELLO??? if referring to the people in the land of Canaan and it is AFTER the flood- so I don't understand your objection. I also pointed out that there are several other names used to describe the nephilim race. Perhaps you recall the story of David & Goliath? Goliath was one - way after the flood as well.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
First of all, there was no test for virginity needed. Virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing or by cosmetic means ; The process of identifying the females who were not married and not prostitutes-sacred or secular, would have been straightforward. This wasn't not about sex slavery but lawful marriage and procreation!
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
you don't understand God, why would you belittle it? Why can you tell me that and not apply it to yourself? I'm telling you all this because I know for a fact that science cannot determine everything so therefore science is the weaker tool to reasonable faith.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"I know for a fact that science cannot determine everything so therefore science is the weaker tool to reasonable faith."
Hey, that's new! And remarkable. Are you seriously saying that faith is better at determining truth because there are a few things science hasn't explained yet?
You're completely, utterly delusional.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago 9
Science doesn't explain everything, but believing that the Bible is the Word of the Creator of the universe is downright fucking FOOLSH. If YOU are a Christian, I will BELITTLE YOU whenever the fuck I WANT.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
@FaithisNOTblind "reasonable" faith cannot determine anything. It makes no testable predictions, it is completely impotent. All it can do is blind you from reality.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
If science is not the only thing to know truth, what else is there? We've already covered relativity. I don't doubt scientists progressing in the origins of life but what about the origin of the universe? Big Bang? what about before big bang? or before before big bang, certainly science cannot reach into a different realm to explain our existence, then where did that realm come from? what about the one before that, and that, and that???? Infinite causes are impossible without a starting point.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
You're getting repetitive. There is no reason to postulate before the Big Bang. You could make up any scenario. I believe that before the big bang, the universe was an onion bagel shaped like a tractor. It's meaningless.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
My template: One truth, One Sovereign God, One purpose in life, God is absolute.
Your template: observational experiments, science is progressing, truth is relative, science is the absolute truth to life.
you keep on saying science is progressing, ok it is...but what you're absolutely implying is that "science is the only way to know of our truth and existence." If that is true, what scientific method did you use to come up with that truth???
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
The claim that "science is knowledge of truth" is a self-refuting claim. Therefore, truth can be known without the use of science as well. I know that I have a brain, but if I can't see it, then I don't deny that I have a brain. If truth can only be known by science, then if I don't deny that I have a brain... I must open up my skull to see that I really do have a brain and therefore to know that "having a brain" is true.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"The claim that "science is knowledge of truth" is a self-refuting claim."
Silly, at best.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
"but what you're absolutely implying is that "science is the only way to know of our truth and existence." If that is true, what scientific method did you use to come up with that truth???"
Stop it, you're killing me.
I'm saying that science has a proven record of showing truth. I'm not implying anything absolutely. Stop with the word games.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
I use "space goo" as you would use "spaghetti monster" to deter the other side of the argument.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Sorry, it's not the same thing. You try and make the argument that the other side claims that we came from space goo. I don't try and claim that you believe in the FSM.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that you should belittle it. There are very intelligent people doing complex research on origins of life, and none of them say that we came from space goo.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
i never said or was futile towards biology. What does that have to do with anything? I know we are complex creatures, and still this complexity came from space goo. Oh what a leap of faith.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Please cite one scientific source that claims we came from space goo.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
"That doesn't even make sense. It is impossible to refute logic? What does that mean?"
"relative truth" ring a bell? Logic says that "truth about our existence" cannot be relative, when you and I die, I'm flying through the cosmos while you cease to exist. I know that's how I would want it, my soul flying through the cosmos. but will that happen? Does logic say it will happen like that? of course NOT! My feelings will not make it real. Does that seem logical to you?
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Yes, some things are not relative. Some are. So what?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
If you don't claim to disprove God, you are at the most agnostic. Atheistic claims cannot be substantiated by science cuz science cannot disprove God.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Wrong.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
What is the object of your argument? To discredit God? To bring down Christianity? To prove yourself intelligent? To explain life, or to explain life without God? If we are just mere biological machines we would not be debating on Youtube.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
My argument? To show the foolishness of religion, I suppose. To enjoy myself. To have fun.
Why are you so critical of biological machines? We are amazing! We don't need a god to be incredible beings.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
God, Yahwee, Vaajtswv, call it whatever you want, but that's the only other explanation, the only other alternative. science or God? Science cannot determine what happens to the conscience after death. To say that it's just the end of biological entities is just as cruel as you claiming that "I use God to fill the gaps of science." It's not a word game, its logic and if you can't refute logic, which is impossible, than I don't know what to tell you.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"Science cannot determine what happens to the conscience after death."
Well, science can determine what happens to the brain after death, which is that it stops working. Thus it would make sense that when we die, we're dead and done.
"its logic and if you can't refute logic, which is impossible, than I don't know what to tell you."
That doesn't even make sense. It is impossible to refute logic? What does that mean?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
I like that, Richard Dawkinn's all time favorite mythical creature to compare God to.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
It's a useful tool, though. Pretty much anything you say about God also holds for the FSM. Can you disprove it?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
So our existence is a mere self-perception? Wow, in that case how come I don't see flying pigs and candy canes growing out of the grass? Feelings are relative, yes I give you that, but the truth about our existence is NOT relative. Your notion of relative truths sums down to "you only believe what you believe because of your personal perception." You believe that evolution and science is truth to existence, you don't understand how everything I've been telling you compliments each other.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"So our existence is a mere self-perception?"
Gee, is that what I said? Let me check... Whoops, nope, it wasn't.
You know, it would be much easier if you would reply to the specific comment you are addressing. Otherwise I have to scroll all over the place to try and figure out which of my comments you were misinterpreting.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
"you don't understand how everything I've been telling you compliments each other."
Which things? Your meaningless logical absolutes, your word games and your God of the Gaps argument?
If you want to believe that there is a Prime Mover who began the universe and created life, that's fine by me. There just isn't any reason to believe in such a being other than our lack of scientific progress.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Logically I can say that there is one infinite entity, one supreme sovereign ruler above all finiteness. One autonomous eternal being above all. There are two kinds of people in the world, ones who proclaims the truth and ones who suppress the truth. The infinite entity cannot be disproven therefore one cannot claim that it does not exist.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
The Flying Spaghetti Monster can not be disproven, therefore one cannot claim that it does not exist.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
We don't have to call it God, or anything of a religious nature, but I hope you at least established to yourself that there is an infinite entity that pulled finite biological bodies, nature, and the laws of nature into existence. to be cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
No, I don't need a god.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
"A monotheistic god is the best explanation for you, because that is what you seek."
I don't believe in alien experiments to clone humans, I don't believe in polytheism (many gods) or anything from a science fiction film to explain life. Plausibility and logic has its effect on my convictions of a monotheistic God. If there are spiritual activities of many entities, who or what is the authoritative figure above them? Or who created them? or who created the one who is supreme to them? cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
How're the gaps getting smaller to disprove God? You cannot claim a universal negative unless you have all the evidence to substantiate that claim. How is the expanding universe the work of itself? How are cells able to function together to repair it's organ? Where did the cell get its functioning organelles? Evolved from what? space goo? what's above space goo? how did it get there? it can go on forever...Certainly not of itself. Biological entities cannot possible by autonomous of itself.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
1. I do not claim to disprove god. Never have, never will.
2. Your claim is that since science hasn't solved the problem of abiogenesis, that God is true. Fine, use god to solve a problem that science hasn't figured out yet ... wait, there's the God of the Gaps again!
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
"It's God of the Gaps, but the gaps are getting smaller and smaller."
You don't understand anything beyond the "creationist vs. atheist" arguments. Evolution is from species to species, not from space goo to human. Many animals on Earth share similar attributes but evolution likes to link these animals together to form an ancestral chain.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Logic cannot be refuted, logic says that "science cannot proclaim the truth to everything."
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"Truth is relative" is a self-destructive, self-refuting claim. Read it over and over again until you understand it. The Laws of Logic cannot be refuted. truth cannot possibly be relative to an individual. Your red car is not blue to me. So how is truth relative? If truth is relative, than you assert that that is absolutely true. Then it is not relative at all since the truth is that "truth is relative."
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
[Sigh]
Really? Are you that dense? Why are you so obsessed with word games? If I say that "truth is relative", that does *NOT* mean that I believe *EVERYTHING* is relative. My red car is red to you, and to everybody else. New York is East of California. The Sears Tower is taller than my house.
However, other "truths" are relative - how we perceive the world, what we feel about it, how we react to it.
It's not that hard to understand.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
I'm glad we agree that there is only "one truth" because "relativity in truth" cannot possibly be true. If your car is red to you, it is not blue to me, it is also red to me. Your red car is an absolute truth, yes I'm human and that is also absolute truth. but there is also absolute truth to life, in general.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
And absolute truth in life cannot possibly be "scientifically observed" as discussed earlier. If truth ends at the Big Bang, then anything beyond that cannot be true. What is wrong with that statement? If only observational evidence can determine truth. I know you didn't claim that but it is a fundamental atheistic claim that science is the best tool to determine life. But logic cannot be refuted. A singular, monotheistic, god is the best logical explanation. cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
A monotheistic god is the best explanation for you, because that is what you seek.
"If truth ends at the Big Bang, then anything beyond that cannot be true. What is wrong with that statement?"
You need to ask?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Do you know how to read? When did I say there was only one truth? I believe in relativity. You should look at the comments more closely before you post.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
So you're suggesting that only "observational evidence" can determine what's true? That's a self-destructive claim. What "observational scientific method" did you use to come up with that truth? If you can't observe what caused the big bang, or what caused that caused the big bang, or what caused that caused that caused the big bang, and so on, then u can't know that "observational evidence" is the only way to know truth because of infinite regression.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Because anything prior to the Big Bang cannot be observational, well you say that science is getting there, well what about before that, and that, and that and so on... an infinite amount of matter-producing universes, or cosmic births cannot possibly be observed by nature and by logic. Finite existence came about by an infinite entity, is the best logical explanation.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Basically, it seems that you are saying that because science might not be able to answer all the questions *you want* answered, that you need a God.
It's God of the Gaps, but the gaps are getting smaller and smaller.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
In general, I would say that observational evidence is the only real way we have of determining truth. What else is there?
Anyway, I fully expect that there is a point at which scientific discovery will be stopped. That doesn't mean that the scientific method is flawed, or that you should jump to supernaturalism. Just that there are limits in the universe. Nothing wrong with that.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Do you only believe in "obserservable evidence?
youVSmee 3 years ago
"Do you only believe in "obserservable evidence?"
No, because I don't know what obserservable means. ;-)
It depends on what you mean by "observable evidence." But in general, I would say "Yes."
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
In other words,"emperical observable evidence". Only that which you can test,along the lines of science.
Anything beyoind logic,rational, and reason,i.e.God, is out of the question? In other words, anything that deals with our physical world.
youVSmee 3 years ago
"Only that which you can test,along the lines of science."
I would say "Yes", although I'm not fond of absolutes.
"Anything beyoind logic,rational, and reason,i.e.God, is out of the question?"
Well, for me it is. I'm not foolish enough to say that it *can't* exist, or even that it *doesn't* exist. But nothing in my life has given me reason to believe in any of it.
Your mileage may vary.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Monotheism vs. polytheism...do you need me to get into details or do you want me to send you a link where you can find info about this issue where Monotheism (one God) makes the most plausible logical sense.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
If there exists a supernatural entity, I would believe that there is only one, for this reason: If there were more than one, then they would potentially interact with each other, and those interactions would be something that we would be able to notice.
As it is, if there is a supernatural entity, it has managed to hide itself so brilliantly that it is nearly impossible to detect.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
If you agree with me about "absolute truth" and have that established, then we can identify what that absolute truth is. That's why I got into saying stuff about polytheism vs. monotheism. Science can only go so far, you and I agree, and it's time to take on logic...cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
I do not agree with you about absolute truth. And I think using logic to discuss God is foolish and tiresome. You can not make up a proof to prove or disprove god.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
To say that you don't believe in an absolute truth is self-refuting. That is your absolute truth. Well you say that ok, now truth is relative. My truth is relative to me and yours is to you...admit it, it all boils down to that in logic, set aside science and think for a minute. So if "truth is relative," then that absolute statement is not relative at all. cont.
I put quotes just so you can tell what common statements are being made to the simplest.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Do you really believe that God can be proven or disproven with word games?
[sigh]
"To say that you don't believe in an absolute truth is self-refuting. That is your absolute truth."
Wrong. And wrong. Saying "I don't believe in absolute truths" does not mean that I hold that as an absolute truth. Furthermore, if I then say, "I absolutely believe my car is red." will that show that I believe in absolutes?
You're playing with words, and it's silly.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
"My truth is relative to me and yours is to you...admit it, it all boils down to that in logic,"
That is what I believe. Many things that are true to you are not true to me. Many things are true to both of us. Many things are true to neither of us.
But all of that is simply because we have language, and can play with it. Our way of talking about the world does not affect how the world really is.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Any scientist can tell you that the universe is dying. Death is it's long-term fate. Death is just the nature of things.Stars die, planets die, etc....Do I need to get into details?
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Do you understand what happens when a star goes supernova? The explosion of a star releases vast amounts of heavier elements into the universe, and those elements are the building blocks of the universe. The shock wave created by a supernova going through a hydrogen cloud is the beginning of the process which creates a star.
The "death" of a star is necessary for the creation of new stars.
Did you know that?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Give me one scientific analysis or claim (factual finding and not theories) that the universe is eternal. Anyone can come up with a theory.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Um, when did I ever state the universe was eternal? Why am I supposed to support a claim that I have neither made nor believe?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
To say that "there is no absolute truth" is self-refuting. You're stating an absolute.
To say that "there are no absolute morals" is self-refuting, where did you get the moral authority to make that judgement?
Laws of Thermodynamics confirms that the universe is dying, so the claim that the universe is eternal is invalid, as confirmed by science. Entropy states that every biological machinery is dying, using up energy and lesser and lesser energy as it ages. cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
I do not say "there is no absolute truth", nor do I say, "there are no absolute morals". I don't believe in them, but I make no specific claims about it.
You do not understand the laws of thermodynamics. Please state specifically why you believe that the universe is dying. Why do you believe that I think the universe is eternal?
Entropy is not a problem for evolution. Do you understand that the earth is not a closed system?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
If you don't believe in them, why don't you say "there is no absolute truth." So we have established a deity. Self-contradictory.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"If you don't believe in them, why don't you say "there is no absolute truth.""
How would I have the power to make that claim? I don't believe that there are pink unicorns on Venus, but I don't have the ability or knowledge to prove that point. It's a subtle distinction, so you probably won't get it.
"So we have established a deity. Self-contradictory."
What? How did we establish a deity? Again, you make no sense.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
I can go into scientific details but I don't wanna spend the next 40 hours or so on my computer, I will check back but I can get scientific.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
You shouldn't need to spend 40 hours. Please state why you believe entropy is a problem for evolution. Provide a link, if you like.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
I'lll reason with you, to deny the existence of God is to say that "there is no absolute truth." Absolute truth cannot be of this world because science claims that everything has a cause and effect. if u see a rock, where did it come from? How did rock molecules bind together to make a rock? etc. the list goes on and on and on.... cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
You say: to deny the existence of God is to say that "there is no absolute truth."
That is not true. You can believe in absolute truth but not a God.
I, however, do not believe in either.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
You say: "if u see a rock, where did it come from? How did rock molecules bind together to make a rock?"
I've already stated that the best argument you have is beginnings. Scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang. Scientists can't tell you exactly what caused life to begin on earth.
When you think about it, it's amazing how far back scientists have pushed the boundaries of knowledge.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
OK Mister Athiest guy you, let's stop talking about rhetorical stuff, how are you gonna disprove the existence of a deity. Let's break it down even further. How is science suppose to disprove of a deity?
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Science can not disprove a deity. I have never, ever, ever said that it could.
See, that was easy.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
It's easy to call anyone delusional, sort of like if my buddy tells me that there is a huge gold fish swimming in a little pond that I only knew to have minnows. I would think he's delusional too, but there actually was one when I actually looked for it, it took hours but I really did see one leap out of the waters. Childhood memories back in the days.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
That's great. Meaningless, but great.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
The stories in the Bible are not delusional driven fictions to try to prove God as you would wish but rather a self-reflection. You're one of the people refusing to enter into the ark because you would rather rely on science to make your life meaningful. As I said science cannot prove everything to be true because logic has that in place.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"self-reflection"
Hey, you're getting somewhere! The Bible is a self-reflection. It was put together as a collection of the understandings of one group of Middle Eastern nomads. It shows how they viewed the world. It's content reflects beautifully the world that they lived in. The stories are most likely based on real events.
I don't believe the Bible is "fiction".
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
yes the Bible was written by at least 40 authors as confirmed by original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. You haven't answered any of my questions from earlier posts. you just have a bunch of questions that apologetics can answer but you can't disprove of a deity.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Like I said, make a new comment with specific questions, and I'll answer them. Maybe you don't realize this, but your comments are all over the place and sometimes hard to understand. If you simply ask a question, I'll answer it.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Even if you didn't say what I quoted, you haven't answered my questions.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Then stop rambling and throwing out garbage. You make a ton of posts, and I'm going to correct your glaring mistakes first. I will answer anything you want if you pose it intelligently. Half of your questions seem like rhetorical ones. If you want a discussion, then settle down, simplify, and ask specific questions. I'll answer them.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Noah's ark was a leave way from self-destruction. I'm pretty sure that word went around the world about Noah's flood because people talk. Just as now the word of
Christ has reached the whole world, people still refuse to come to His saving grace.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
That makes sense. If I was living in China, and I found out that some guy I had never heard of, in some place that I had never heard of, was building a boat because some God I had never heard of was going to destroy the earth, I would definitely believe it.
The neat thing is that you *have* to believe crap like that. Because if you don't, then you need to admit that your God is a mean, mean guy. Kinda funny.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
there were no Chinese people back in Noah's days anyway. God did not part languages until after Noah's flood during the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. Funny how you mentioned that if you were a Chinese person living in China not accepting a foreigner's preaching, if that's the case then why is there a huge Chinese Christian population?
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Yikes. When exactly was "Noah's days"?
You say: "Funny how you mentioned that if you were a Chinese person living in China not accepting a foreigner's preaching, if that's the case then why is there a huge Chinese Christian population?"
That is a complete logical fallacy. One is not connected to the other in any way. It would only be valid if *every* person in China is a Christian. Which is not the case.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I hope that answers your question. I can get deeper into it. God doesn't exist because of why?
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
I can't even tell which question you were answering. I asked, "When exactly was 'Noah's days'?"
I was hoping that you would tell me how long ago Noah lived - 3,000 years ago? 4,000 years ago? When was it?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
You've seen the countless galaxies in the universe, you've seen all the animals in existence (theory of evolution cannot substantiate this claim) and I've reasoned with you to the fullest logically, but you are still trying to explain away God. why are you an atheist, if you don't mind me asking.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
OK, you are definitely a bit odd. I ask you a specific, easy to answer question, and you go on about the galaxies of the universe? And then you say that you have reasoned with me logically. Um, no, you haven't.
I am honestly curious about when you believe Noah lived. Will you answer the question?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
The Bible is not specific on dates, just like it is not specific on science, but it has some verses that is closely related to some laws of nature, etc. Noah's time would be estimated around 2300 B.C.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Thank you. The Chinese will be stunned to know that there were no Chinese people living there before 2300 BC.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
what a stereotype to third world countries! So you're implying that the Chinese is not capable of trying to find truth, Chinese people have no curiosity. that's what drives them into the truth, it's their curiosity, not their stubborn claim that the universe just happened out of random. If I was Chinese, my curiosity would lead me into establishing a deity. Now it's time to identify that deity. cont.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
So we're up against polytheism (many gods) and monotheism (one God). Aliens, cloning of humans, anything you can think of science-fictionally, all falls under polytheism (many gods, or many activities, or claims outside of this world.)
Buddah, the Jude0-Christian God, Allah, all fall under monotheism.
Cont....
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
You say:
"what a stereotype to third world countries! So you're implying that the Chinese is not capable of trying to find truth, Chinese people have no curiosity."
What the hell? I have no idea why you would say that.
Anyway, why do you believe that China is a third world country?
Bizarre.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
I said that because that was your intent. You said that if you were Chinese, you would reject a foreigner preaching to you. That's just common sense, but it is not the truth. So you're implyng that the Chinese are incapable of finding truth.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
That is not my intent. You are 100% wrong. Do you have poor reading comprehension skills, or is English not your first language?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
God is ABSOLUTE! Absolute love is giving man a free will. If God created you upholding you to Him only, that is not absolute love. Absolute love demands a will. Absolute love is to die for someone you care about. God cares about you. He died on the cross in the flesh as Jesus. The highest level of love from man to God is to sacrifice his only child. But God did not require us to do any sacrificing, He did it all symbolically as Himself dying for man, and giving up His only son Jesus.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
I meant to say absolute love demands a "free will."
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Man cannot die for an eternal God, so the ultimate love for man is to sacrifice his only son for Him. He demonstrated this through Abraham and his son Isaac. So an all loving God died himself and gave his only Son, just so man can live in eternal comfort. That's divine ultimate absolute love.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Yippee for God.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
On the Phelps again...its like they took the basic understanding of Christianity and perverted it in their own ways and their own practices, you've ever noticed them out preaching their garbage with no Bible?
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
And Shirley Phelps's family are people who do not practice the biblical Christianity. God hates sin, not man. The correct way to practice faith is to warn people of sin and turn away from it through God's love and mercy for man in Christ Jesus. Hell exists to reflect God's absolute justice. To cease to exist is not absolute justice. Absolute justice demands eternal punishment.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
God is absolute! To say that "there are no absolute truth" is self-refuting. You're stating an absolute.
God is eternal! Laws of nature do not apply, God sees my life and yours laid out in front of Him past, present, and future. laws and theories includes thermodynamics, entropy, time, gravity, etc.
To say that "there are no absolute moral" who gave you that moral authority to make that decision?
Hallelujah, my God is forever with me.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
God warns people all the time about self-destruction, after all everyone's gonna die one day, God warned those to turn to Him but they choose to go opposite, "self-destruction." So God orders self-destruction to reflect His eternal justice, but it's not like God did not provide a leave way for those people. God always does, just like He offered Christ as our leave way from the destruction of hell. I hope that answered some questions you have mister Atheist.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Just like God provided a leave way (an ark) for the people during Noah's time. The flood was going to bring destruction but people don't care and died because they chose to. They knew they were warned.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
I can't remember - which verse mentioned that God told every person in the world about the flood? I know the people by Noah knew, but what about people living in Africa? China? Were they warned?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
It took Noah 120 years to build the ark and preach salvation for the human race (the ark which is symbolic of Christ, today it's Jesus Christ)from self-destruction (the flood in Noah's days, and hell today). 120 years is a lot of years of preaching. I take it that Noah told every living person at the time about the flood to come.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Cool. You're delusional.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
No I'm not delusional like you would like me to be. How is scientific convictions, universal logic and reasoning suppose to make one delusional? You tell me!!! I'm not trusting a God blindly like most atheists would assume. I have reasons of convictions that God is almighty and that He is what's holding this world together.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
I'm sorry. You just said, "I take it that Noah told every living person at the time about the flood to come."
Really? Seriously? How did he get to the Americas and back *before* he built the big boat?
It is clear that you are just making stuff up.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
delusion is a matter of opinion, not facts.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
And, to be fair, "delusional" isn't exactly the correct word in that instance.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
Midianite isn't a race.
GodGunsAndGlory 3 years ago
Cool. Thanks.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
also, this was the beginning step in leading up to teh coming of Christ. Israel had to get to the promised land. the law of Christ and love supersedes teh instructions of Israel in teh era of Moses and Jacob
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
Love?
You must be reading a different Bible.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
the whole Bible is a love story. so ya...love
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
genocidal love stories are always the most heartwarming.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
its not that God didnt love the people he had the Israelites kill, but this was the first step in setting up for Jesus, and he was going to save more ppl by the means of Jesus than by sparing those ppl. he made teh statistically correct choice
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
can't make an omelete without a few genocides?all knowing and all powerful,but the guy can not work out a way to save humanity that does not involve killing killing all but the virgin females?i hope you are never standing over a male child.sword in hand,telling him that his death is the statistically correct choice.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
they were the one holy community of faith. these directions are consistent with Deuteronomy 12. God was taking steps to remove the impurity from around Israel, so it would not be a threat to them. and by doing so they had to get rid of all impurity around them so they would 1)not be attacked by surprize by past war competition and 2)fall into sin with impure things. God didnt necassarily love them more but Israel had a higher calling and RESPONSIBILITY. God was tough on Israel.
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
hm.tribal community of faith eliminating tribes that worship other gods.now where have i heard that before,oh yes i recall now!pretty much all of human history!thanks for clinging to the oldest excuse for genocide ever.ditto on "eliminating impurity"hell people still use that one in modern times.you sound like you could have been a speech writer for hitler or had a radio show in rwanda.the clasics really do not die.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
"not be attacked by surprise by past war competition".yup i have to admit that killing someone down to the last male infant would be pretty effective at that.utterly abhorrent to anyone with a conscience,but effective none the less.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
the culture back then in midian and surrounding areas would obligate those children, when they grow up, to avenge their fathers' deaths. and Israel had the most important calling on Earth at the time. if the Jews were destroyed, it would wipe out any chance of people following God. God was willing to use any means necassary to preserve that and apparently God saw that as necassary
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
ah so genocide's acceptability s purely a relative thing based on local colture according to you.does that mean that arbic coltures are still allowed to do it to this day to one another since both parties as a rule hold to the idea of blood debts and family obligations of vengeance?you are also describing god as a pragmatist on not an idealist here.does god have a fixed moral code?re does the end always justify the means for him,no matter how vile?
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
and why could god not just have jesus born to a different people,he had not yet made the prophecy about jesus or him coming from davids line?
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
he still knew that Jesus was going to come. he still had that plan for him. and im not saying its ok to have to avenge your fathers death with blood. but im saying that Israel had to erase all possibilities of that happening to them
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
genocide as a preemptive strike?not even g.w.bush has sunk that low.nice to know that you think it is ok to slaughter children based on what they might do.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
God doesnt need to explain himself to you. dont critisize him.
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
god should probably not have given me the capacity for critical thought then.that i would not apply critical thought to the idea that some people say is central and all important to life seems faintly ridicules to me.your god seems like the reflection of his times,not something that stands beyond time.another excuse by primitive man to enslave and kill those around them,all the while calling themselves a chosen people.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
God has always and will always remain the same, even while his people change
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
i guess more commands for genocide could come at any moment then.sorry but the "god does not change"thing remains pure rubish.the shift from old testament to new is so radical it could better be call schizophrenic.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
its not God. the ppl changed. thats why his instructions changed. cultures change. his love will always be the same. he may change his plan up for certain ppl based on prior decisions or paths they may have taken, but he is the same loving God. its not fair that he has to alter his plan for us. it should be the opposite. it shouldnt have to be that way, but he is a loving and merciful God, so im not gonna critisize him on that.
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
so god is just unchangingly wishy washy?ever a crowd pleaser he just promoted slavery and and genocide until people were at last in the mood for jesus?then at long last the love started flowing that he had been holding back?pull the other one it has bells on.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
what? no. he has always loved. hes not wishy washy. hes our helper. he will provide new paths for ppl to take. its not to please them, its to help them. some roads arent easy for them to take, but its for their own good
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
sorry but i think if i did follow a god,it would have to be one that was slavery and genocide free.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
ive heard everything about God supposedly condoning slavery and im not too impressed. but i cant make you follow my God so good day to you
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
and i can not seem to convince you how bad slavery and genocide are,so good day to you.
NemoUtopian 3 years ago
"God doesnt need to explain himself to you. dont critisize him."
It always comes down to a variant of this - "God works in mysterious ways."
No matter what complexity or foolishness the Bible displays, we can always chalk it up to God's mysterious actions.
How convenient.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
well God does know best. but i dont understand how any scientifically educated person cannot believe in God. the odds of this universe being created without intelligent design is something like 1/trillion trillion trillion trillion. i dont understand how anyone can put their money on the those chances
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
"i dont understand how any scientifically educated person cannot believe in God"
So says the person who is *slightly* scientifically educated. Trust me - a full scientific understanding makes God highly improbably at best.
Yes, the odds of the universe ending up as it is are staggering. However, once the universe started, there had to be *some* outcome. This is just one of a nearly infinite number of options.
[continued]
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
[moving on]
Imagine a deck of cards. Shuffle and deal them out in a line, 52 cards long. The odds of any one set of 52 cards turning up are a billion to 1. Yet, I can guarantee that once you've turned over the 52nd card, you do have an order.
Looking at the cards after you dealt them, you can say, "Wow, the odds of this order of cards are staggering. The order *must* have been designed." Yet, you know that it was random.
It is similar with our view of the universe.
Make sense?
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
w/e you say. doesnt add up
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
"w/e you say. doesnt add up"
Thanks. I know that it can be difficult to try and express ideas in this limited space. However, the fact that you don't understand it makes me believe that an understanding of science and probability isn't exactly your strong suit. That's fine - just don't go around saying things in areas that you don't understand.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
im actually very gifted in science. better than 93% of the nation to be exact. my IQ test showed ten points away from genius
nickdaballer09 3 years ago
Congratulations.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
1 out of 52 highly probable, yes. If you look at fine tuning, a slight variant in any laws of nature results in no life. Answer this, if we dont know what caused the Big Bang, or what caused that caused the big bang, and so on...that is highly improbable that the universe can exist due to infinite regression, but the universe does exist, a universe that is dying as confirmed by the laws of thermodynamics, so the universe cannot be eternal, this finite life was created by an infinite entity.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
how is science suppose to make God improbable? That is boiling your statement down to "science is the only way to know what's true." What scientific method did you use to come up with that absolute? Your claim is self-refuting closet atheist guy you.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
The more you learn about science, the more you realize that God is not necessary. Your strongest place to argue is beginnings - the origin of life or the universe. Everything else? Pretty much God free.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
How is learning science suppose to make you not need God? How is the complexity of a machinery in a single cell suppose to deny a higher truth? How is the cosmos suppose to render God improbable? If anything, it's suppose to make you glorify an almighty creator. What logical basis do you structure that claim around that "science can prove the inexistence of God?" There are none. Logic says it itself that "science cannot prove everything to be true."
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Note - when you put something in quotation marks, it implies that your are using a person's direct quote. You write: What logical basis do you structure that claim around that "science can prove the inexistence of God?"
I never said that. And I don't believe that.
That's called using a strawman argument.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
God has to use statistics? How pathetic.
Um, don't you remember that he's God? Omnipotent and all that crap?
The dude doesn't have to bother with frickin' statistics.
Pathetic.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago
To show my true love for my wife, I disemboweled a homeless man. After we feasted on his heart, our love was sealed forever.
ClosetAtheist 3 years ago