I'm a poly-theist and I think every thing Ravi is saying is completely none-sense.
1 - Ravi assumes Form and Information are created out of nothing by an intelligence in to the universe instead of being innate attributes arisen out of the universe.
2 - He assumes that human morality is "the" morality which in turn needs be given because of the fact that it exists.
@GiordanosRetort Thank you for watching! If you have nothing higher than yourself to anchor morality...a higher reference point, then there is no morality. If there is no God then all things are permitted. you'd be a fool to not live selfishly, why live a moral life if it doesn't exist. The animal kingdom thrives by doing so, dolphins rape, a lion will kill a cub so it cannot challenge later. Outside of God there is no morality
@GiordanosRetort if you believe that this 'IDEA' of morality that we have has a naturalistic explanation....well theres no reason to acknowledge it. sure live by it when it benefits you, but do as you please in secret.
@GiordanosRetort when has information and form (not a cloud that sorta kinda looks like a horse) ever come from nature? he assumes form and information is a direct result of intelligence because thats what our repeated observations of the universe shows us. you can say 'form and info doesn't need intelligence' but you need to offer some kind of example. Science teaches that info rich systems (like DNA) comes from intelligence
@psykojojo I disagree with your “need for an anchor of morality” assumption on the grounds that both innate, as well as calculated, human morality can spring from human consciousness & collective consciousness, which set’s him apart from other animals, as well as social modalities, which in part have a evolutionary use for an individuals lineage or even the over all species. Though social use of morality can also be used to further ideals, abstractions, and not necessarily genes. ->
@psykojojo This, however, simply weakens what your saying with your alternate life style which seems to makes sense to you if indeed there is no moral authority above man.
Consciousness in this sense would be, that which is allowed by the human cerebral cortex to manifest it’s self in greater complexity than other spices.
You would be a fool to think that there is only one way to live in all human circumstances and periods in history/time if indeed there is no author of human morality. ->
@psykojojo Perhaps you think there is only one way to live without a deity because you started from the philosophical vantage point of there only being one right way to live, so as to please your own deity.
With the realization of Fractal and Chaos mathematical theory we can understand that form doesn’t simply rise in a static state but is innately self replicating - giving the sense of information. Compare the forms of crystalline structures, river flow & tree’s with one another. ->
@psykojojo Two are non-living yet all of them use the same mathematical and physical laws to create what the human brain recognizes as form. Apart from that - if my ancestors bread so as to create and intelligence that better understood form and pattern, not exclusively of corse, then it shows me that taking this line of reasoning back in to my genetic line will result in the building upon previous systems of orders and magnitude with in regards to the recognition of pattern and form. ->
@psykojojo Hence I see what I do in and about the world because it was useful to my ancestors.
Furthermore if we take in to account Morphogenetic Field theory then we don’t need to be created but instead pulled history with an end goal, while unclear, could take the forms that we see in our every day lives.
@psykojojo To explain where I’m coming from, so hopefully I make myself clearer, my main deity is not the creator of the human species but a far distant ancestor of mine within it who embodies its self in natural forms as well as abstract ideals and the universe we live in an organism which is not simply material but also conscious. Nothing is separate in this model. Thanks for asking your questions!
this topic and many of the like remind me that our past ancestors ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. we were told that on that day that we ate then we would die. we are told that we must have the faith of a little child to enter the kingdom of God. a child most certainly does not think about these topics that are being debated. we are truly lost and need a savior! I believe in Christ jesus. end of the story!
if there is a moral law there is a moral giver there is good and evil if u accept there is evil there is good as well amen!!!!!!!!! this is so true! there is a god
Aren't those commandments pathetic? They are supposed to have been carved (by god the mason) about 100,000 years (or more) after man first appeared! Do you think man would have got through that amount of time without realising that it's a bad idea to kill your kind? And that limitless stealing is counterproductive?
The 10C also display a pathetic insecurity on the part of the god.
The Subjective Realism is more than the Objective Design of the Universe. That is why no one who is alive and thinking can be objective and depart the world to then explain the balance of what is left, when you remove yourself in the examination of what is left. It is like "The Whole is more than the sum of it's parts" That statement hints at the extra something added by the sentience of the observer being aware and able to associate with anything based on desire for it's own pleasure.
@SuperCan0 well whats your biggest objection to christianity or theism. what exactly comes off as a 'story' to you, do you understand the premises of his arguements?
Anybody can convince for that is only within the realms of limited understanding. Ask any politician and he does it for a living - The art of persuasion. But no sooner have you voted him in you realise the mistake.
Conviction is beyond the mind. It is of the spirit. I hope you understand.
"You take the physical universe as you see it - however you slice it down to its 'minutist' (sic) form... you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence in itself... it has to find its explanation outside of itself"
This might be true for everything within the universe but its a big mistake to treat the universe as if it was just another object contained within something bigger. Its NOT! There is NO SUCH THING as 'outside' or 'before' the universe.
@Hufflewaffle something began to exist from nothing, it didn't pop into existance in a large empty space, there was no actually SPACE for a 'something' to occupy, so BEFORE is an important question. It would be different if we had this huge empty vacuum and something appeared in it, instead there was this....nothing if thats what you want to call it, but by mere CHANCE theres a .....something, space appears, then matter comes to occupy this space, then natural laws to govern this matter
@psykojojo I'm not sure what you are saying. Yes there was no space for the universe to occupy, nor was there time. We simply can't imagine such a thing as 'spacelessness' or 'timelessness'. The whole idea of it is wonderfully mysterious and can only be approached through metaphorical reference. 'God' is one such metaphorical reference. The problem is that too many people are convinced that He is literally real and that they can even communicate with Him!
This might be true for everything within the universe but its a big mistake to treat the universe as if it was just another object contained within something bigger. Its NOT! There is NO SUCH THING as 'outside' or 'before' the universe. Your inclination towards nonexistence outside the universe or preuniverse is really an opinion, you can´t say that without people refuting your blant statement, us mortals cannot see outside the universe or before the universe to negate
@jhquest0 You don't seem to understand. I don't have an inclination towards anything. The term 'outside' implies space. The term 'before' implies time. By using the terms 'outside space' and 'before time' you are simply describing a semantic paradox. Its like saying the earth is pointing 'northward' or suggesting that there is a 'being' that exists in the corner of a circle. Its not just wrong, its meaningless in any literal sense.
Just so I don't get anyone responding back to me, cause I am a busy woman.
(Laws of logic) are normative/concepts NOT Positive/metaphysical. 2 + 2 = 4 is a logic absolute, but NOT empirically based. You cannot find the numerical 2 any where in reality, but you can find a multiple of 2 of something; 2cars, 2boats, 2chairs. Thus the concept of 2 is in reference "towards" something, not the thing in and of itself.
Ergo logical absolutes are concepts dependent of a mind. (Is-Ought) dichotomy.
@daddyofone09 Ermmm nope that is a (relativistic fallacy), whats true for me, is not true for you. Like it is wrong to say "this is a table might be true for you, but not for me". Other than cognitive relativism, "its true I like tables, but you don't".
"if truth where simply relative, then what would be the point of teaching?"
Banana Bread, even ballerinas need their feet to create a pirouette. However, God needs nothing to create something. That's why ballerinas are only ballerinas and God is God.
Reading some of the comments here i see the problem with man is that he tries to analyse God's mind by the standards of his own mind. Man needs something to create something. God needs nothing to create something. That's what makes man, a man and God, God.
You cannot prove the existence of God.Origin and existence can speak of a creator not necessarily God.God takes faith to believe because assimilation of all man's thoughts compiled are sifted through a dying brain.The great brain is weak flesh of death.regardless of what you read or experience flesh cannot be trusted.Without faith it is impossible to please God. God cannot be proved.God is not moral but superior in Virtue than morality.A moral lawgiver alone would be unjust without Christ
@polopowers1 Lets see.. "Argument from bold assertion".. and I'd throw in a "goal posting the argument" as well. Ohh and God is a Ballerina! Whats my reasoning for this? I have none, because I just fucking asserted it!
@anicma I am having a sensible debate. "God is a Ballerina" is just as much a Crown assertion, as the claim that your God is not bound by logic or any physical laws.
When you make a claim you need a premise: something in support of it, you can't just simply assert it. Otherwise God is a Ballerina. Or rather God is a Ballerina because.. XY&Z.
@bananabread119 Every claim that God exist is backed by tangible empirical proof. Every word in the Holy Bible is true. Show me one verse that cannot be proved true or disputed. Even right now, as you live, every word is coming true.
@bananabread119 I am not in an argument with you or with anybody here. But truth be told, i live a life where i know the word of God as pure, living and true - Everyday and every moment. If i were to give you examples, you would not be able to number them.
That's why i asked you to show me one verse that you think is not true, proving itself to be true or already proved.
@bananabread119 Other than calling my comments various adjectives, you have conveniently avoided what i have asked you to do - "show me one verse in the Holy Bible that you think is not true, proving itself to be true or already proved."
@anicma NO NO YOU SIR HAVE BEEN AVOIDING ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS!! You've made several assertions and when challenged with these objections, you simply avert addressing them all together. The moment I ask "WHY" Its like you just abandon ship. You make gross assertions that you never intend on answering; whilst shifting the burden of proof.
@anicma NO NO YOU SIR HAVE BEEN AVOIDING ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS!! You've made several assertions and when challenged with these objections, you simply avert addressing them all together. The moment I ask "WHY" Its like you just abandon ship. You make gross assertions that you never intend on answering; whilst shifting the burden of proof.
@bananabread119 Read Matthew 24. If you are even casually aware of everything that is happening around you and also the whole world, and if you are truly honest to yourself, maybe your eyes will be opened.
@anicma Hey look this has no premises, so I can use the same argument.
If you are even casually aware of everything that is happening around you and also the whole world, and if you are truly honest to yourself, maybe your eyes will be opened.
@anicma Read my last comment. If you are even casually aware of everything that is happening around you and also the whole world, and if you are truly honest to yourself, maybe your eyes will be opened.
@anicma Hi anicma. While your answer is convincing yet it doesn't prove anything. Thats what you call Fallacy of personal incredulity. The "god-did-it" answer. Lightning and earthquake was once then believed to be the "wrath of god," isn't it? Hope you got the point. ^__^
Genesis 1 1-3 says 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said,3 “Let there be light,” and there was light.
( It is my opinion that God spoke everything into existance ) He is God. Whatever He says happens. There was nothing here, but out of nothing He created. Just be speaking ( Let there be )
@MaineWeddingVideos OMFG WHAT is the 1st law of thermodynamics! "matter energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed". So we already know Genesis is bullshit and your opinion sucks!
PEOPLE come on!! You have me thinking I'm a genius when I'm NOT! Some of the stuff you guys are saying can be explained away by an 8th grade Science book!
@bananabread119 I like bananabread! But I don't like your argument... Your basing "Genesis is bull" on Laws.... Who made the laws of this universe that was created? The laws existed before some very smart people discovered them... God created matter, He created energy, you don't have to believe it. It will not change the hearts of Gods children because you can't get it. The universe was created by God, all things where made by Him, for Him. Which also includes the Laws you have to use!
@bananabread119 You have a fantastic point bananabread! 1st these laws are for this earth that was created by God for us, He does not need Earth to exist therefor does not and never did obey the laws of logic he gave you, to argue with even. To use logic to understand or come to believe in God hasn't worked, I could not say for sure, but would guess it has never worked. God wants to be a personal God to His children, and He loves you banana, even if you don't love Him.
Then I have a question, if you believe that the Universe came from nothing is a ridiculous assertion. Then what sir did God create the Universe out of?
@bananabread119 Does a Chef give you a meal and explain how he made it and what he put in it every time he makes one? Why do you expect God to explain to *us* how he designs and creates something, taken into account we could even possibly understand it lol..... Faith....
@bananabread119@bananabread119 Does a Chef give you a meal and explain how he made it and what he put in it every time he makes one? Why do you expect God to explain to *us* how he designs and creates something, taken into account we could even possibly understand it lol..... Faith....
@bananabread119 creation "ex nihilo" can be better explain not "out of nothing" instead, creation out of non-existing materials; because nothing produces nothing.
@bananabread119 creation "ex nihilo" can be better explain not "out of nothing" instead, creation out of non-existing materials; because nothing produces nothing.
Right so something out of nothing. YOu know what STOP responding to this! We don't know! I don't know! You don't know! NO one knows! So lets leave are minds to wonder and unfold this mysteries, instead of inserting GOD into every craves of the unknowable.
@bananabread119 But you keep taking God out of a working equation, just to say "I don't know, you don't know", it's liking taking the main gear out of a perfectly working clock and saying "we don't need that gear, the clock never needed it, even though it doesn't work without it, we'll wait and find a way.......*puts on carl sagen voice* ....we may never know...." meanwhile your stuck with a clock that doesn't work and probably never will without the necessary parts.
@bananabread119 out of Love. which then Love creates Light light being the force and structure of everything in the universe. but all these came from Love which is GOd. all other religion say opposite. instead they say light and then love or light created love. but we no darkness rests not with light so if light created love then light created also hate. which is impossible since hate is darkness. so God throu his Love created the light and stretched out the heaven(space) with his light!
@34Adamlee77 ahh how explain this without blowing your mind. ..Umm go look up the fallacy "weasel wording" better yet here you go,
Weasel wording: The use of words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.
Ok so the next thing for you to do is look at the definition read it over understand it, then look at your comment and then we'll talk.
@bananabread119 Ah, but now you assume that God is subject to our natural laws. God created the laws, hHe is transcendent. He is not subject to the earth.
@bananabread119 Yes, you still assume that He is even subject to it. Is an artist subject to his art? Is any creator subject to his creation? Who is in charge? God, or us?
@bananabread119 No one said anything about logic. It is as simple as the fact that God created everything. He is not subject to anything. He is God it really is that simple. If He didn't give the laws then where did they come from? You seem to know so much.
@daddyofone09 ha If we're not using logic, then how would you know if I where to respond fallaciously? You see without logic we can't even attempt to have any meaningful conversation, because we couldn't convey truth. So without logic you have no argument and you cant even prove your claim is true.
@daddyofone09 ha I did educate you, I proved to you that you forfeit your own argument by even having an argument with me. Ohh and if your talking about the Laws of logic they are interpreted by man.
@bananabread119 Are you serious? Or are you simply looking for an arguement? What if my logic, my truth, says that yours is a lie? Is it still logical and true?
@bananabread119 Truth cannot be relative. It has to be absolute. A truth is something that holds factual evidence eternally. What you speak of is opinion. It is true you like that table and that I don't.
@bananabread119 Again what you speak of is opinion. Truth is something that holds a factual stance for eternity. Opinion changes. Doctrine of the flux is shenanigans. The laws of thermodynamics and law of degradation are unchanging. To say there is an absolute law that everything changes is a contradiction. To say everything changes means that even the law of flux changes too. Think about what you are saying. There has to be an absolute and an absolute law giver.
@bananabread119 Nope. That being a "truth" makes it metaphysical which nullifies it's potential to be absolute because you say it is only relative. You just turned yourself around.
@daddyofone09 ha I am trying to argue, arguing is good. I hope though that this experience will teach you, that you don't know what the HELL your talking about!
@tgamerlegend Can you demonstrate this? Otherwise God is Ballerina. Also if you're saying that physical laws themselves come from your God, then physical laws are Supranatural and thus your argument becomes self refuting.
"Then what sir did God create the Universe out of?" - With all due honesty and respect, that's like asking the question 'what does nothing look like'.
Think about it. The question you're asking is self-defeating. It's saying that God was all there was but had to create the universe out of something. By saying the universe had to be made out of something, you're saying that that something existed before that something began.
@BassP86 NO You're avoiding answering the question!!!
If "Ex-nihilo/something from nothing" is such a ridiculous claim. Then logically there had to have been "something" that your God created the Universe out of? I'm asking what was it??
Ah, I'm sorry I misunderstood the situation under which you asked the question. I don't agree with psykojojo that ex nihilo is a ridiculous claim. I believe that it would be necessary if God WERE to exist (playing devil's advocate for the moment). Saying that nothing from something is ridiculous would be like saying that something existed before something began, which is self-contradictory. I apologize for not understanding you correctly.
@BassP86 That's fine sir but you're not out of the woods yet. I still believe you're misinformed because you need to study Aristotelian 1st Philosophy; "actual and potential" states of being. Ex-nihilo I would agree, is a ridiculous assertion.
"because you need to study Aristotelian 1st Philosophy; "actual and potential" states of being." - May I ask in regards to what specifically? Would you care to elaborate on the part where I am misiformed and where Aristotle's principals of potentiality and actuality come into play in this?
@bananabread119 Ok then where did the entire that came out of the single tiny point in space, aka The Big Bang? What does science give us as facts about where everything came from and how it was all stuffed into a tiny point no bigger than a pin head?? Miraculous ins't it?
Also you may want to study thermodynamics which says that NOTHING ever begins to exist matter and energy only changes never is it created nor destroyed. It is more over called the "LAW of conservation of energy" which states just that. I don't know how much studying you've done but honestly Jo this is high school science where talking here. But I'll send you the video by pm.
@bananabread119 I've heard most of these 'debunks' and i'm not really impressed, I've never been impressed by any of the athiest philosophers attempts to refute any of the big questions, such as the fine-tuning and origin of the universe. Step into any introductory physics class and one of the first things you'll learn is that the universe had a beginning and as a direct result, space time and matter had a beginning, this fits well with the Christian worldview.
1) Okay.... Jo your brain has been highjacked! I'd rather you believe in the Bible than anything William lane Craig has to say or even Stroble at that. Now I can easily debunk and refute anything they say as well as what you're saying, ANYONE CAN cause there morons! Now I'm not really blaming you cause I doubt you know much about philosophy and logical fallacies but I am open to your questions and criticisms if you'd like.
2)Now allow me to address some claims you happen to just throw out there. The fine tuning argument is STUPID and fallacious at best. We are fine tuned for our environment the environment is NOT fine tuned for us. It is NOT AT ALL perfect cause as you would already know there are naturalistic things that conflict with our existence such as Earthquakes "Haiti" disease, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, floods, Drought etc.. etc. This is an appeal to Nature which is a logical fallacy.
You know what I wont even get into this cause I don't know what makes you believe in such things, but just ask me anything you like ANYTHING at all and I will do my best to address it and explain why what there saying is just completely false as well as mendacious. I don't say this to be arrogant, I'm really being completely honest here! Well anywho great wrestling vids hope to hear from you! And hope you can watch my friend that I mentioned. TBS
@bananabread119 Hi! I'm sorry to be so late on a comment, so I hope this might still be helpful. I also hope I am not being rude. Bananabread119, you state our environment is not at all perfect. I agree with you. I do have a question and I don't mean any disrespect. How do you define what is and is not perfect?
@bananabread119 lol...nah I'm good brother, thanks for the concern. I didn't need to take a course on philosophy to understand that all effects must have causes, that there can't be an infinite series of causes into the past; and that God can POSSIBLY be the uncaused cause. Nobody made me a Christian (or brainwashed me), I did the research for myself as an agnostic and found my own answers
Sigh.. This is almost like a pattern! You Christians and theist seem so sure of yourselves and barricade your minds from any scrutiny or arguments to the contrary. I think Jo your mind has been highjacked and you are committing yourself to confirmation bias. I strongly urge you to watch that video I referenced on the refutation of the Kalam argument from "TheoreticalBullshit" pardon his name. ha
Please watch it in its entirety & I promise your questions will be answered!
@bananabread119 if you're interested in a thorough look at the subject , William Lane Craig has the subject sewn up nicely in his book, it's amazing stuff
I'm a poly-theist and I think every thing Ravi is saying is completely none-sense.
1 - Ravi assumes Form and Information are created out of nothing by an intelligence in to the universe instead of being innate attributes arisen out of the universe.
2 - He assumes that human morality is "the" morality which in turn needs be given because of the fact that it exists.
Any questions or comments?
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
@GiordanosRetort Thank you for watching! If you have nothing higher than yourself to anchor morality...a higher reference point, then there is no morality. If there is no God then all things are permitted. you'd be a fool to not live selfishly, why live a moral life if it doesn't exist. The animal kingdom thrives by doing so, dolphins rape, a lion will kill a cub so it cannot challenge later. Outside of God there is no morality
psykojojo 2 months ago
@GiordanosRetort if you believe that this 'IDEA' of morality that we have has a naturalistic explanation....well theres no reason to acknowledge it. sure live by it when it benefits you, but do as you please in secret.
psykojojo 2 months ago
@GiordanosRetort when has information and form (not a cloud that sorta kinda looks like a horse) ever come from nature? he assumes form and information is a direct result of intelligence because thats what our repeated observations of the universe shows us. you can say 'form and info doesn't need intelligence' but you need to offer some kind of example. Science teaches that info rich systems (like DNA) comes from intelligence
psykojojo 2 months ago
@psykojojo I disagree with your “need for an anchor of morality” assumption on the grounds that both innate, as well as calculated, human morality can spring from human consciousness & collective consciousness, which set’s him apart from other animals, as well as social modalities, which in part have a evolutionary use for an individuals lineage or even the over all species. Though social use of morality can also be used to further ideals, abstractions, and not necessarily genes. ->
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
@psykojojo This, however, simply weakens what your saying with your alternate life style which seems to makes sense to you if indeed there is no moral authority above man.
Consciousness in this sense would be, that which is allowed by the human cerebral cortex to manifest it’s self in greater complexity than other spices.
You would be a fool to think that there is only one way to live in all human circumstances and periods in history/time if indeed there is no author of human morality. ->
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
@psykojojo Perhaps you think there is only one way to live without a deity because you started from the philosophical vantage point of there only being one right way to live, so as to please your own deity.
With the realization of Fractal and Chaos mathematical theory we can understand that form doesn’t simply rise in a static state but is innately self replicating - giving the sense of information. Compare the forms of crystalline structures, river flow & tree’s with one another. ->
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
@psykojojo Two are non-living yet all of them use the same mathematical and physical laws to create what the human brain recognizes as form. Apart from that - if my ancestors bread so as to create and intelligence that better understood form and pattern, not exclusively of corse, then it shows me that taking this line of reasoning back in to my genetic line will result in the building upon previous systems of orders and magnitude with in regards to the recognition of pattern and form. ->
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
@psykojojo Hence I see what I do in and about the world because it was useful to my ancestors.
Furthermore if we take in to account Morphogenetic Field theory then we don’t need to be created but instead pulled history with an end goal, while unclear, could take the forms that we see in our every day lives.
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
@psykojojo To explain where I’m coming from, so hopefully I make myself clearer, my main deity is not the creator of the human species but a far distant ancestor of mine within it who embodies its self in natural forms as well as abstract ideals and the universe we live in an organism which is not simply material but also conscious. Nothing is separate in this model. Thanks for asking your questions!
GiordanosRetort 2 months ago
this topic and many of the like remind me that our past ancestors ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. we were told that on that day that we ate then we would die. we are told that we must have the faith of a little child to enter the kingdom of God. a child most certainly does not think about these topics that are being debated. we are truly lost and need a savior! I believe in Christ jesus. end of the story!
2792revs 4 months ago
The way I proved God to myself was by allowing Him to prove Himself to me.
1971SuperLead 5 months ago
if there is a moral law there is a moral giver there is good and evil if u accept there is evil there is good as well amen!!!!!!!!! this is so true! there is a god
wertguy 6 months ago 11
@wertguy agreed!
psykojojo 6 months ago
i am convicned there is a higher being called god and jesus is the way
wertguy 6 months ago
Aren't those commandments pathetic? They are supposed to have been carved (by god the mason) about 100,000 years (or more) after man first appeared! Do you think man would have got through that amount of time without realising that it's a bad idea to kill your kind? And that limitless stealing is counterproductive?
The 10C also display a pathetic insecurity on the part of the god.
Why do you "worship", why grovel?
Why does your deity need this abject behaviour?
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
The Subjective Realism is more than the Objective Design of the Universe. That is why no one who is alive and thinking can be objective and depart the world to then explain the balance of what is left, when you remove yourself in the examination of what is left. It is like "The Whole is more than the sum of it's parts" That statement hints at the extra something added by the sentience of the observer being aware and able to associate with anything based on desire for it's own pleasure.
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
this still doesn't convince me, it's as if it can be a nonfiction story
SuperCan0 9 months ago
@SuperCan0 well whats your biggest objection to christianity or theism. what exactly comes off as a 'story' to you, do you understand the premises of his arguements?
psykojojo 9 months ago 3
fantastic proof by ravi wao! really convincing
panthanikos 9 months ago
amayan80east
My speech is not to convince but to convict.
Anybody can convince for that is only within the realms of limited understanding. Ask any politician and he does it for a living - The art of persuasion. But no sooner have you voted him in you realise the mistake.
Conviction is beyond the mind. It is of the spirit. I hope you understand.
anicma 9 months ago
"You take the physical universe as you see it - however you slice it down to its 'minutist' (sic) form... you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence in itself... it has to find its explanation outside of itself"
This might be true for everything within the universe but its a big mistake to treat the universe as if it was just another object contained within something bigger. Its NOT! There is NO SUCH THING as 'outside' or 'before' the universe.
Hufflewaffle 10 months ago
@Hufflewaffle something began to exist from nothing, it didn't pop into existance in a large empty space, there was no actually SPACE for a 'something' to occupy, so BEFORE is an important question. It would be different if we had this huge empty vacuum and something appeared in it, instead there was this....nothing if thats what you want to call it, but by mere CHANCE theres a .....something, space appears, then matter comes to occupy this space, then natural laws to govern this matter
psykojojo 10 months ago
@psykojojo I'm not sure what you are saying. Yes there was no space for the universe to occupy, nor was there time. We simply can't imagine such a thing as 'spacelessness' or 'timelessness'. The whole idea of it is wonderfully mysterious and can only be approached through metaphorical reference. 'God' is one such metaphorical reference. The problem is that too many people are convinced that He is literally real and that they can even communicate with Him!
Hufflewaffle 10 months ago
@Hufflewaffle
This might be true for everything within the universe but its a big mistake to treat the universe as if it was just another object contained within something bigger. Its NOT! There is NO SUCH THING as 'outside' or 'before' the universe. Your inclination towards nonexistence outside the universe or preuniverse is really an opinion, you can´t say that without people refuting your blant statement, us mortals cannot see outside the universe or before the universe to negate
jhquest0 8 months ago
@jhquest0 You don't seem to understand. I don't have an inclination towards anything. The term 'outside' implies space. The term 'before' implies time. By using the terms 'outside space' and 'before time' you are simply describing a semantic paradox. Its like saying the earth is pointing 'northward' or suggesting that there is a 'being' that exists in the corner of a circle. Its not just wrong, its meaningless in any literal sense.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
We thank God for the grace in Dr Ravi. 'He who as an ear, let him hear what the spirit is sayin' From South Africa
TheChristianSA 11 months ago
I love Ravi's logical reasoning. Thanks for posting!
JWGames 1 year ago
keep it civil people, use reason not anger
psykojojo 1 year ago
No banana bread. My God is not a ballerina. But your god is your poor temper and that prevents you from having a sensible debate,
anicma 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 11 months ago
Just so I don't get anyone responding back to me, cause I am a busy woman.
(Laws of logic) are normative/concepts NOT Positive/metaphysical. 2 + 2 = 4 is a logic absolute, but NOT empirically based. You cannot find the numerical 2 any where in reality, but you can find a multiple of 2 of something; 2cars, 2boats, 2chairs. Thus the concept of 2 is in reference "towards" something, not the thing in and of itself.
Ergo logical absolutes are concepts dependent of a mind. (Is-Ought) dichotomy.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 Ermmm nope that is a (relativistic fallacy), whats true for me, is not true for you. Like it is wrong to say "this is a table might be true for you, but not for me". Other than cognitive relativism, "its true I like tables, but you don't".
"if truth where simply relative, then what would be the point of teaching?"
- Plato
bananabread119 1 year ago
Banana Bread, even ballerinas need their feet to create a pirouette. However, God needs nothing to create something. That's why ballerinas are only ballerinas and God is God.
anicma 1 year ago
@anicma & your God is a Ballerina.
bananabread119 1 year ago
Reading some of the comments here i see the problem with man is that he tries to analyse God's mind by the standards of his own mind. Man needs something to create something. God needs nothing to create something. That's what makes man, a man and God, God.
anicma 1 year ago
@anicma "God needs nothing to create something. That's what makes man, a man and God, God."
Argument... from... Bold... Assertion...
Once again God is a Ballerina!
bananabread119 1 year ago
You cannot prove the existence of God.Origin and existence can speak of a creator not necessarily God.God takes faith to believe because assimilation of all man's thoughts compiled are sifted through a dying brain.The great brain is weak flesh of death.regardless of what you read or experience flesh cannot be trusted.Without faith it is impossible to please God. God cannot be proved.God is not moral but superior in Virtue than morality.A moral lawgiver alone would be unjust without Christ
polopowers1 1 year ago
@polopowers1 Lets see.. "Argument from bold assertion".. and I'd throw in a "goal posting the argument" as well. Ohh and God is a Ballerina! Whats my reasoning for this? I have none, because I just fucking asserted it!
Good luck, juls
bananabread119 1 year ago
@Shakespeare4Christ Its is a ridiculous assertion matter cannot be created.
bananabread119 1 year ago
3:00 ha "human intercourse"!!! love hearing him say that!
Bkkhngr81 1 year ago
Hi Banana. The ability to create everything out of nothing is what makes God, God.
anicma 1 year ago 12
@anicma Yah your done.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@anicma I am having a sensible debate. "God is a Ballerina" is just as much a Crown assertion, as the claim that your God is not bound by logic or any physical laws.
When you make a claim you need a premise: something in support of it, you can't just simply assert it. Otherwise God is a Ballerina. Or rather God is a Ballerina because.. XY&Z.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119 Every claim that God exist is backed by tangible empirical proof. Every word in the Holy Bible is true. Show me one verse that cannot be proved true or disputed. Even right now, as you live, every word is coming true.
anicma 11 months ago
@anicma Must we do this again. You're just asserting everything. Where are your premises??
"Every claim that God exist is backed by tangible empirical proof" - Ok what proof?
"Every wood in the Holy Bible is true" - How is it true?
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119 I am not in an argument with you or with anybody here. But truth be told, i live a life where i know the word of God as pure, living and true - Everyday and every moment. If i were to give you examples, you would not be able to number them.
That's why i asked you to show me one verse that you think is not true, proving itself to be true or already proved.
anicma 11 months ago
@anicma sigh... more crown assertions.
"the word of God as pure, living and true" How is it true?
"If i were to give you examples, you would not be able to number them" Ohh I'd love to know?
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119 Other than calling my comments various adjectives, you have conveniently avoided what i have asked you to do - "show me one verse in the Holy Bible that you think is not true, proving itself to be true or already proved."
anicma 11 months ago
@anicma NO NO YOU SIR HAVE BEEN AVOIDING ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS!! You've made several assertions and when challenged with these objections, you simply avert addressing them all together. The moment I ask "WHY" Its like you just abandon ship. You make gross assertions that you never intend on answering; whilst shifting the burden of proof.
bananabread119 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anicma NO NO YOU SIR HAVE BEEN AVOIDING ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS!! You've made several assertions and when challenged with these objections, you simply avert addressing them all together. The moment I ask "WHY" Its like you just abandon ship. You make gross assertions that you never intend on answering; whilst shifting the burden of proof.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119 Read Matthew 24. If you are even casually aware of everything that is happening around you and also the whole world, and if you are truly honest to yourself, maybe your eyes will be opened.
anicma 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anicma Hey look this has no premises, so I can use the same argument.
If you are even casually aware of everything that is happening around you and also the whole world, and if you are truly honest to yourself, maybe your eyes will be opened.
bananabread119 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anicma Read my last comment. If you are even casually aware of everything that is happening around you and also the whole world, and if you are truly honest to yourself, maybe your eyes will be opened.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@anicma Isn't the ability to create everything out of nothing what makes the big bang the big bang?
Ne062 11 months ago
@anicma
GOOD ANSWER ,
lolaponse 10 months ago
@anicma
GOOD ANSWER ,AND THE RIGHT ONE.
lolaponse 10 months ago
@anicma Hi anicma. While your answer is convincing yet it doesn't prove anything. Thats what you call Fallacy of personal incredulity. The "god-did-it" answer. Lightning and earthquake was once then believed to be the "wrath of god," isn't it? Hope you got the point. ^__^
amayan80east 9 months ago
In answer to bananabread119
Genesis 1 1-3 says 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said,3 “Let there be light,” and there was light.
( It is my opinion that God spoke everything into existance ) He is God. Whatever He says happens. There was nothing here, but out of nothing He created. Just be speaking ( Let there be )
MaineWeddingVideos 1 year ago
@MaineWeddingVideos OMFG WHAT is the 1st law of thermodynamics! "matter energy CANNOT be created nor destroyed". So we already know Genesis is bullshit and your opinion sucks!
PEOPLE come on!! You have me thinking I'm a genius when I'm NOT! Some of the stuff you guys are saying can be explained away by an 8th grade Science book!
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 I like bananabread! But I don't like your argument... Your basing "Genesis is bull" on Laws.... Who made the laws of this universe that was created? The laws existed before some very smart people discovered them... God created matter, He created energy, you don't have to believe it. It will not change the hearts of Gods children because you can't get it. The universe was created by God, all things where made by Him, for Him. Which also includes the Laws you have to use!
Freedomremoved 1 year ago
@Freedomremoved If your God does not obey the laws of logic, then you cannot use logic to try to understand or defend him.
its a simple contradiction. (^_^
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 You have a fantastic point bananabread! 1st these laws are for this earth that was created by God for us, He does not need Earth to exist therefor does not and never did obey the laws of logic he gave you, to argue with even. To use logic to understand or come to believe in God hasn't worked, I could not say for sure, but would guess it has never worked. God wants to be a personal God to His children, and He loves you banana, even if you don't love Him.
Freedomremoved 1 year ago
Ravi Zacharias 1 WORD - GENIUS
777irishG 1 year ago
Then I have a question, if you believe that the Universe came from nothing is a ridiculous assertion. Then what sir did God create the Universe out of?
....??
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 I'll pm my answer
psykojojo 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Does a Chef give you a meal and explain how he made it and what he put in it every time he makes one? Why do you expect God to explain to *us* how he designs and creates something, taken into account we could even possibly understand it lol..... Faith....
paulfoom 1 year ago
@bananabread119 @bananabread119 Does a Chef give you a meal and explain how he made it and what he put in it every time he makes one? Why do you expect God to explain to *us* how he designs and creates something, taken into account we could even possibly understand it lol..... Faith....
paulfoom 1 year ago
@paulfoom
lol.... Argument from false analogy! hahaha -_-
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 not sure how you see that as a false analogy. But at least you know where I'm coming from. :)
paulfoom 1 year ago
@paulfoom Yah whatever gets you off.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 creation "ex nihilo" can be better explain not "out of nothing" instead, creation out of non-existing materials; because nothing produces nothing.
merlz 1 year ago
@bananabread119 creation "ex nihilo" can be better explain not "out of nothing" instead, creation out of non-existing materials; because nothing produces nothing.
merlz 1 year ago
@merlz
Right so something out of nothing. YOu know what STOP responding to this! We don't know! I don't know! You don't know! NO one knows! So lets leave are minds to wonder and unfold this mysteries, instead of inserting GOD into every craves of the unknowable.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 But you keep taking God out of a working equation, just to say "I don't know, you don't know", it's liking taking the main gear out of a perfectly working clock and saying "we don't need that gear, the clock never needed it, even though it doesn't work without it, we'll wait and find a way.......*puts on carl sagen voice* ....we may never know...." meanwhile your stuck with a clock that doesn't work and probably never will without the necessary parts.
psykojojo 1 year ago
@bananabread119 out of Love. which then Love creates Light light being the force and structure of everything in the universe. but all these came from Love which is GOd. all other religion say opposite. instead they say light and then love or light created love. but we no darkness rests not with light so if light created love then light created also hate. which is impossible since hate is darkness. so God throu his Love created the light and stretched out the heaven(space) with his light!
34Adamlee77 1 year ago
@34Adamlee77 ahh how explain this without blowing your mind. ..Umm go look up the fallacy "weasel wording" better yet here you go,
Weasel wording: The use of words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.
Ok so the next thing for you to do is look at the definition read it over understand it, then look at your comment and then we'll talk.
Hugs, em
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Ah, but now you assume that God is subject to our natural laws. God created the laws, hHe is transcendent. He is not subject to the earth.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 Who said anything about the earth? What about the Universe? ha
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Yes, you still assume that He is even subject to it. Is an artist subject to his art? Is any creator subject to his creation? Who is in charge? God, or us?
daddyofone09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daddyofone09 Once again If your God does not obey the laws of logic, then you cannot use logic to try to understand or defend him.
its a simple contradiction. (^_^
bananabread119 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 ha Once again If your God does not obey the laws of logic, then you cannot use logic to try to understand or defend him.
its a simple contradiction. (^_^
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 No one said anything about logic. It is as simple as the fact that God created everything. He is not subject to anything. He is God it really is that simple. If He didn't give the laws then where did they come from? You seem to know so much.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 ha If we're not using logic, then how would you know if I where to respond fallaciously? You see without logic we can't even attempt to have any meaningful conversation, because we couldn't convey truth. So without logic you have no argument and you cant even prove your claim is true.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Neither can you. You still have yet to answer my question. Should you choose to educate us.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 ha I did educate you, I proved to you that you forfeit your own argument by even having an argument with me. Ohh and if your talking about the Laws of logic they are interpreted by man.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Are you serious? Or are you simply looking for an arguement? What if my logic, my truth, says that yours is a lie? Is it still logical and true?
daddyofone09 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Truth cannot be relative. It has to be absolute. A truth is something that holds factual evidence eternally. What you speak of is opinion. It is true you like that table and that I don't.
Truth is an absolute. There is no way around it.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 "Truth cannot be relative." Yes it can, is it true that Bob likes the Packers?
"It has to be absolute." NOOO!! Metaphysics is not absolute only concepts are. Give me one example?
Ohh and this might help, "Doctrine of the flux"
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Again what you speak of is opinion. Truth is something that holds a factual stance for eternity. Opinion changes. Doctrine of the flux is shenanigans. The laws of thermodynamics and law of degradation are unchanging. To say there is an absolute law that everything changes is a contradiction. To say everything changes means that even the law of flux changes too. Think about what you are saying. There has to be an absolute and an absolute law giver.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 Concepts are absolute not Metaphysics.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Are you absolutely sure? Is that absolutely true?
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 Yesem. ha
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Nope. That being a "truth" makes it metaphysical which nullifies it's potential to be absolute because you say it is only relative. You just turned yourself around.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 ha Nope. Concepts are absolute not Metaphysics. As they say try try again.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Dude, I really think you are simply trying to argue. Take care.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 ha I am trying to argue, arguing is good. I hope though that this experience will teach you, that you don't know what the HELL your talking about!
take care, juls
bananabread119 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Wow, resorting to name calling? Real mature dude. Good job. Take care.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
@daddyofone09 ha Well nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. You where not being intellectually honest, so I called you out on it.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 *snicker* ok dude. Sure why not? Take care.
daddyofone09 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 out of nothing because God is supernatural and not bound my physical laws in fact he created them.
tgamerlegend 1 year ago
@tgamerlegend Can you demonstrate this? Otherwise God is Ballerina. Also if you're saying that physical laws themselves come from your God, then physical laws are Supranatural and thus your argument becomes self refuting.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119
"Then what sir did God create the Universe out of?" - With all due honesty and respect, that's like asking the question 'what does nothing look like'.
Think about it. The question you're asking is self-defeating. It's saying that God was all there was but had to create the universe out of something. By saying the universe had to be made out of something, you're saying that that something existed before that something began.
BassP86 11 months ago
@BassP86 NO You're avoiding answering the question!!!
If "Ex-nihilo/something from nothing" is such a ridiculous claim. Then logically there had to have been "something" that your God created the Universe out of? I'm asking what was it??
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
Ah, I'm sorry I misunderstood the situation under which you asked the question. I don't agree with psykojojo that ex nihilo is a ridiculous claim. I believe that it would be necessary if God WERE to exist (playing devil's advocate for the moment). Saying that nothing from something is ridiculous would be like saying that something existed before something began, which is self-contradictory. I apologize for not understanding you correctly.
BassP86 11 months ago
@BassP86 That's fine sir but you're not out of the woods yet. I still believe you're misinformed because you need to study Aristotelian 1st Philosophy; "actual and potential" states of being. Ex-nihilo I would agree, is a ridiculous assertion.
bananabread119 11 months ago
@bananabread119
"because you need to study Aristotelian 1st Philosophy; "actual and potential" states of being." - May I ask in regards to what specifically? Would you care to elaborate on the part where I am misiformed and where Aristotle's principals of potentiality and actuality come into play in this?
BassP86 11 months ago
@bananabread119 Ok then where did the entire that came out of the single tiny point in space, aka The Big Bang? What does science give us as facts about where everything came from and how it was all stuffed into a tiny point no bigger than a pin head?? Miraculous ins't it?
RagingCaveman 11 months ago
@RagingCaveman Miraculous no but I would say that the PSR is subject to it.
PaperNun 9 months ago
Also you may want to study thermodynamics which says that NOTHING ever begins to exist matter and energy only changes never is it created nor destroyed. It is more over called the "LAW of conservation of energy" which states just that. I don't know how much studying you've done but honestly Jo this is high school science where talking here. But I'll send you the video by pm.
Hugs, em
bananabread119 1 year ago
Comment removed
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 I've heard most of these 'debunks' and i'm not really impressed, I've never been impressed by any of the athiest philosophers attempts to refute any of the big questions, such as the fine-tuning and origin of the universe. Step into any introductory physics class and one of the first things you'll learn is that the universe had a beginning and as a direct result, space time and matter had a beginning, this fits well with the Christian worldview.
psykojojo 1 year ago
@psykojojo
1) Okay.... Jo your brain has been highjacked! I'd rather you believe in the Bible than anything William lane Craig has to say or even Stroble at that. Now I can easily debunk and refute anything they say as well as what you're saying, ANYONE CAN cause there morons! Now I'm not really blaming you cause I doubt you know much about philosophy and logical fallacies but I am open to your questions and criticisms if you'd like.
Continued..
bananabread119 1 year ago
@psykojojo
2)Now allow me to address some claims you happen to just throw out there. The fine tuning argument is STUPID and fallacious at best. We are fine tuned for our environment the environment is NOT fine tuned for us. It is NOT AT ALL perfect cause as you would already know there are naturalistic things that conflict with our existence such as Earthquakes "Haiti" disease, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, floods, Drought etc.. etc. This is an appeal to Nature which is a logical fallacy.
Continued..
bananabread119 1 year ago
You know what I wont even get into this cause I don't know what makes you believe in such things, but just ask me anything you like ANYTHING at all and I will do my best to address it and explain why what there saying is just completely false as well as mendacious. I don't say this to be arrogant, I'm really being completely honest here! Well anywho great wrestling vids hope to hear from you! And hope you can watch my friend that I mentioned. TBS
Hugs, em
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 Hi! I'm sorry to be so late on a comment, so I hope this might still be helpful. I also hope I am not being rude. Bananabread119, you state our environment is not at all perfect. I agree with you. I do have a question and I don't mean any disrespect. How do you define what is and is not perfect?
SpiritWarrior1981 1 year ago
@SpiritWarrior1981
Umm Who is this again? But anyways how can I define what is perfect? Easily umm the painting in my room is perfect.
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 lol...nah I'm good brother, thanks for the concern. I didn't need to take a course on philosophy to understand that all effects must have causes, that there can't be an infinite series of causes into the past; and that God can POSSIBLY be the uncaused cause. Nobody made me a Christian (or brainwashed me), I did the research for myself as an agnostic and found my own answers
psykojojo 1 year ago
@psykojojo
Sigh.. This is almost like a pattern! You Christians and theist seem so sure of yourselves and barricade your minds from any scrutiny or arguments to the contrary. I think Jo your mind has been highjacked and you are committing yourself to confirmation bias. I strongly urge you to watch that video I referenced on the refutation of the Kalam argument from "TheoreticalBullshit" pardon his name. ha
Please watch it in its entirety & I promise your questions will be answered!
Hugs, em
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 if you're interested in a thorough look at the subject , William Lane Craig has the subject sewn up nicely in his book, it's amazing stuff
psykojojo 1 year ago
good stuff jojo!
markymarktheman 1 year ago