FINALLLY thank GOD someone finally has been able to SAY IT in a way ive never been able to.. all i could ever say was, how do u explain sunsets, rainbows, volcanoes, snowflakes, fingerprints, everyone is unique and there will never be anyone else like u.. why do we all have the need to pour our heart and soul into.. anything.. soccer fans go nuts!! u can be passionate about anything right!! horse races, fights, competitions, SPORTS FANATICS? fact that everyone NEEDS to have faith is something..
Indeed, I am glad you made those video. "All thinking men are atheist" Well that quote been clearly proven wrong. Even as a christian, I don't deny evolution, but the point you made was clear, nonetheless, evolution did have proved with some kind of changed, like a bird's beak would shrink, but genetic engineers have done the reverse evolution clock on the gene of a chicken, as results, a dino tail! So things can be unusual. I think a knuckle dragger that believes in God is defined as human.
I don't see why God can't prove Jesus' divinity to everyone. First, Jesus' "miracles" would have taken away the free will of everyone who saw them--c'mon, if they were real, then he HAS to be divine! Secondly, God has no problem with leaving a sign on Earth for all future generations--according to Genesis 9:12-13, that's what rainbows are (we know today that rainbows are a result of refraction, but anyway). Matthew 17 says that God came out from the clouds and spoke. Why can't he do that today?
1B) Right, Jesus would be divine if the miracles are true if that is what you believe. But, some people at that time, asserted Jesus power to be evil or of the devil. Again, proving Jesus' divinity would mean God proves His existence to everyone and that choice to reject God is gone. He can do it and He will in the 2nd coming. You could say that God returning would take away free choice. In a sense it does but humans would have already made their free choice to accept or reject God.
Some people said that it was the devil? But how do you know that? If God really loves us, that implies that God does not want us to suffer. If he does not want us to suffer, then he doesn't want us to go to hell forever. That's why he sent Jesus, right? So then why can't he have everyone accept Jesus? That way, no one will suffer.
1D) If you read Luke 11:14-20, Matthew 12:22-30 and Matthew 9:27-34 you will see how Jesus was accused of His power being demonic. It just goes to show how things are perceived differently. It is true that God loves us, doesn't want us to suffer, and doesn't want us to go to Hell forever. To deny Jesus is to deny God's offer to save us. But if He MAKES us accept Him, that is not love. True love is freely chosen.
2D) All God asks is that you accept Jesus and His sacrifice and your sins are paid in full. God lovingly did what we could never do and paid the price we deserved. It seems so simple to accept God's offer but doing so requires one to humble himself and put God first and to trust in Him (faith.) It seems to some that God makes all these "rules" as a means to control us or to serve His ego. But He is God! He doesn't really NEED anything!
3D) However, if you really study God's word, you'll find these "rules" are only because God IS all-knowing and only wants the best for us because the things we gravitate toward that are sinful, will only hurt ourselves and others in the end. It is very similar to the parent telling their child to do certain things for their own safety but the child often doesn't SEE the danger. But the parent KNOWS.
God supposedly spoke to humanity before Jesus' time too. According to the story of the Tower of Babel, ancient people built a tower so high that it got to heaven. God took offense and came down, making all the people speak different languages, so that no one could understand the others (Gen 11). Of course, linguists know that languages evolved slowly over time, but today, we can build towers taller than ever before--the Burj Dubai is testament to that. Why doesn't God come down and chastise us?
1C) Genesis 10 tells us of the different languages. Genesis 11:1-9 is a "flashback" from when in Genesis 10 the languages were confused. Genesis 11 tells how the different languages originated (over time which would agree with linguists.) When God confused the languages it is not saying He created new languages. He confused the existing languages causing people to congregate with those who spoke their same language. They went and settled in other parts of the world.
That wasn't really the major point of my reference to the Tower of Babel story...but in any case, at that this supposedly happened (ca. 2400 BC), there were already many different languages unintelligible to the others.
It is not really certain when the Tower of Babel incident took place. In Genesis 11, we see the main goal here is many people from many different nations (and you would say many different languages) wanted to congregate and live in one place. It makes sense that in order to accomplish this, they would first, need to decide on one language. (Hence Genesis 11:1) Therefore, the other languages existed but they chose one to accomplish their purpose.
2C) God doesn't chastise us because Jesus mission on Earth is complete. We are waiting for the return. The Bible speaks of how God changes the method in which He speaks and interacts with us to serve a certain purpose. For God to reveal Himself in any way now that would prove He exists, like chastise us, would defeat Jesus whole purpose, rendering everything Jesus did including His sacrifice, pointless and would contradict His own word in the Bible.
Then why did God "reveal" himself before Jesus came? Does the Bible say "Oh, by the way, I won't be talking to humanity until I come again. Sorry!"? Could you please find that for me? Back then there was no hope for salvation anyway. How can people who lived before Jesus' time go to heaven? If they saw God, then they would have been forced to believe in him, but they couldn't be saved. These are all rationalizations for why God has never spoken to modern people directly.
1D) Everything that happened in the OT, including the way God revealed Himself to the people was to pave the way for Jesus to come. The Bible isn't THAT specific of God changing the way He communicates! See Hebrews 1:1-2 and Jesus' words in Luke 16:16 to see examples of these. The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice. Is it justice that pre-Jesus people are excluded?
2D) If they saw God and believed in Him why would they not be saved? How could God ever reach out to us without revealing Himself in someway? He chose certain people to achieve a purpose. If God were really there, wouldn't you want to know?
2B) It will mark a time where God returns, the people have made their choice, and there will be a new existence. Rainbows: Rainbows still occurred before that. God simply wanted the rainbow from that moment on to serve as a reminder of His promise. It would be like looking up at a star in the sky and giving it a name even though it was already there.
Hmm...I think it says "I set my bow in the sky". He "set" his bow after the flood. This implies that there were no rainbows before, because up until that point, God hadn't put his bow (rainbows) there.
Not really because God says, He "sets His bow." There is no real indication it is for the 1st time. The intent here was that God wanted the rainbow to take on a new meaning and serve as a reminder. Just like an olive branch represents peace but it existed before we created that symbolism.
3B) It would be great if God still spoke to us that way but God spoke that way in the past for a reason- all in the higher purpose of ensuring Jesus came and died. Once resurrected Jesus left, that marked the end of the Earthly mission. We are now waiting for the return.
From your perspective, I can totally understand how that seems to be a flimsy explanation to say, "Well, God just doesn't speak to us this way anymore." It comes back to faith.
Well, doesn't that destroy the "free will" of all the disciples and everyone who witnessed Jesus' miracles? If they witnessed his miracles and they were real, they can't possibly deny Jesus' divinity. If the disciples' "free will" can be destroyed, why not ours?
1E) Again, Jesus was accused of deriving His power from the devil. Just because they saw something miraculous didn't require them to do anything about it. Don't forget that Judas betrayed Jesus. I don't know about you, but I would WANT to witness those miracles and KNOW I was in the presence of God. I think deep down, some people would really want to know if God really existed and would welcome it.
2E) If Jesus didn't do any miracles or anything extraordinary, what sort of motivation would there really be to assert He was God? I doubt Christianity would last long if all Jesus did was tell some cool stories and just went around saying He was God and did nothing else. The disciples were the chosen ones to help further Jesus cause, yet they were not forced to do anything. They freely obeyed. It is also God's plan, not ours. What we think would be best is often not.
4B) Although, the Bible does speak of how God speaks to the people and how He changes His methods: Hebrews 1:1-2. Despite this, I believe in God. I think God wants to provide just enough evidence to indicate He may exist but not allow anything that serves proof He exists. Think of it this way- if now we knew God existed beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would in a sense, force many to respond a certain way. But if God allows us to choose Him freely; it is a love that uncoerced.
No offense, but you're just dodging the free will question. The reason that Jesus can't appear to anyone and that he never performed any miracles that last to the present day, such as placing a burning cross in the sky forever and writing about it in the Bible, or calculating pi to the trillionth place in the Bible, is because he was a normal guy.
1) None taken. I'm trying to answer as best as I can. I was hoping that you would see that miracles have lasted to the present day by faith from those who believe but not for all. Jesus could place a burning cross in the sky forever and write about it in the Bible, etc. which could be convincing proof, but what about faith? Faith would no longer be needed.
Well...I see two problems with this explanation. Before we begin, I'd like to apologize for any rudeness that I've expressed towards you. I think we should start on a new leaf as intellectual equals. Firstly, the whole "free will" argument makes no sense if God is omniscient. If He is, then He knows what we're going to do before we do it, which implies that some people are born to be damned and some are born to be saved.
1) No apology necessary. Sometimes these things seem to get heated but please know I respect your views. It's also tough trying to cram everything in 500 or less without seeming abrupt. I'm glad you brought up the issue you have with God's omniscience. It is true that God knows what we're going to do before we do it BUT it doesn't mean that God made them to be doomed.
2) The person is free to do whatever they want BUT God knows everything the person will do & permits them to have their freedom. Here's a simple illustration: If I present a child with 2 choices- 1. A piece of cake. And 2. A plate full of dirt & worms & say, "Eat which ever you want." The child is free to eat what they want but I know what they're going to pick. Again, a simplistic example, but in God's omniscience, He can know our every choice we will make without denying our freedom.
Okay, but how do you know that God actually gives us a real choice? It's nicer to believe that we have a choice, but that doesn't make it true. If God knows everything that we will do, then he knows whether or not we will be saved or damned beforehand; there is no choice involved. In the case of the cake, everyone will reject dirt. But in real life, will everyone reject non-Christianity in favor of Jesus (cake)?
1F) Imagine if a video camera recorded everything you did for a day. You could easily go back, watch the tape, and know certain things that were going to happen before you actually saw yourself doing them. Yet, you see you were free to do what you want. Do you feel coerced throughout the day?
Honestly, "free will" is a sham; the analogy of cake doesn't make a lot of sense, because then there's only one choice that someone would make. And no, you don't really know with 100% certainty what the kid would take; maybe a mischievous one would take the dirt and throw it at you. But if God knows *everything* with *infallible* certainty, then there is no free will. Anyway, not all real decisions are like this in which
1G) If you think free will is a sham then I respect your view. Again, that was a simple example. The point was to show how we could know what someone would choose beforehand which was obviously in a very limited capacity compared to God. An omniscient God would know much more complex decisions we would make where it would be impossible for us to predict. Sometimes we are presented with several choices with too many variables to predict.
2G) It wouldn't surprise me if a kid chose dirt! But the whole point of this example was to illustrate that God KNOWS what you will do and PERMITS your freedom even though it may not be the best choice.
This makes no sense. If God "KNOWS" what we are going to do, then He can never give any free will. If He did, then it would be possible to surprise God. God might be able to give some sort of superficial free will if He could see, say, two or three minutes into the past/future. But the point is he can see everything (think Toy Story).
1) It makes more sense that if God does exist, that He knows all, and has the ability to control things to comply with His desire, that He could act upon it. Therefore, if God was a god of "good" would you assume that only good things would happen? If God were a god of evil, would you assume only bad things would happen? What we see is good and bad happening.
2) Doesn't it seem more logical that if God exists, He is only letting us have our freedom? Otherwise, if we had no freedom, God would be forcing us to do what He wants. If God really is a God of love, this would not be a valid expression of it.
2F) God prefers that we only do good things. If He really gave us no choice, wouldn't it make sense that He would not allow bad things to happen in the world? The cake/dirt example was simplistic. Sometimes the choices are not so clear. Consider this- what if the person who gave you dirt as a choice, lied to you and told you it was finely crushed Oreos!? It does seem that God sometimes makes a person who is doomed. But God makes the person.
But the question remains; how do you *know* that God really gives us free will? I think it boils down to "That's just the way I want it to be". But wanting something to be a certain way doesn't make it that way.
I like the last sentence. Now, read that sentence and assume God's perspective. Because God knows everything, has the power to do anything according to His nature, doesn't mean He will make it so. If God did not give us free will, He would not be a God of love.
3F) The person dooms himself by the wrong choices he makes. Many times and in many ways, God says, "Here I am" but many don't want to listen, believe, etc. It is just further testimony that the person was free to do what they want. The fact that there are people existing who reject God is even further proof of our free will because if God only desired good, why make people who will reject Him. God simply just knows what the person will do and grants them that freedom.
In response to 2F), you're right. It doesn't make sense that bad things happen. It's a contradiction. It's evidence against the existence of God. How do you know that the person is the one who makes the choice? How do you know that God really gives him a choice? People who reject God isn't proof of free will; it's evidence that there is no God (or at least not a good one). You're logic is pretty much circular.
1H) You see bad things happening and say it is a contradiction to God's existence. But is this the REAL truth? No offense, but it is logically circular to say people who reject God is evidence that there is no (good) God. How is this evidence?
2H) But it is logical to say that if God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, God of love who desires only good and could theoretically make us do good if He acted upon that. It is evidence that we have free will because people still do bad things despite God's ability. You may not agree but it is still a logical viewpoint.
If God is able to make the world the best place ever but is unwilling, then God is not good. If God is willing, but not able, then He is not omnipotent. It is impossible for God to know what we are going to do and still give us a choice. If it were possible, then we could "surprise" God. But God can't be surprised, because He already knows everything.
1) God is able and willing. His promise IS to restore the world. But it is according to His timing. Let's turn the tables and look at it from God's perspective: God is able and willing to restore the world but some people are unwilling to accept Him. Why should God show grace to these people in the same way for those who do accept God? How is it impossible for God to be omniscient and still give us free will? God is not bound by our time.
If God is not "bound by our time", we get stuck in what I call "religious agnosticism"--worship of something that we don't/can't understand. Furthermore, if God is not "bound by time", then how can He answer prayers? Lastly, the Bible says that God must feel human emotions and exist in our time, because according to Is. 13:13 God causes earthquakes when angry.
1) The Bible tells us a lot of who God is. But that becomes a matter of believing it to be true. Why would God have to be bound by time in order to answer prayer? He already knows when and what you will pray for. I respectfully say that simply reading Is. 13:13 and then drawing a conclusion ignores the context. Is. 13:6 starts an account of Judgment Day (the return of Jesus) "the day of the Lord is near." Reiterated in v.9 and in v.13 "In the day of His burning anger."
2) From our perspective, if Jesus is going to return, it will obviously be some "DAY." Because Jesus can enter in our time at a certain time does not mean He is bound by it. Jesus is simply not BOUND by time because He has always existed and always will. Yes, God does get angry and often reveals His anger. In the context of Is. 13, it is Judgment Day. God is angry and being also the God of justice, has come to reveal the truth and to rightfully bring justice to a world succumbed to sin.
2) From His perspective, He can see our whole life from birth to death. We cannot surprise God because He KNOWS everything. There is absolutely no necessitation for God to act on a desire. God desires good but He won't force it on you. He wants it to be your choice. Just because God knows everything you will do does not mean you have no choice.
Again, you assume that God has knowledge of the possible choices we can make, but doesn't know which one we will choose. How do you know this? If God doesn't know what we will choose, he cannot be omniscient. If God KNOWS everything then it's impossible to do something that he doesn't expect. If he expects every one of your actions, then you have no free will.
1A) Again, being omniscient means to be all-knowing which would mean knowing all possible choices AND all actual choices made. This is what the Bible teaches about God. Correct- it is impossible to do something God doesn't expect. I wouldn't say that God really expects anything. Expectation implies an element of uncertainty or "likely but no real guarantee." God simply knows all. How does God simply knowing what you will do mean you have no free will or that He is controlling you?
2A) It is kind of like going to a psychic and they tell you your friend will win the lottery tomorrow. The next day, your friend calls you to tell you they won the lottery. Would you assume or accuse the psychic of arranging for your friend to win? No, the psychic simply knew it was going to happen. It's that simple.
But that's the difference between God and a psychic. If God "knows" you're going to hell, there's nothing you can do to change it, because if God knows it, it must be true.
If God knows someone is going to hell it is only because He knew that by that person's free choice, they would reject Jesus. God didn't make them reject Jesus- they did it on their own and God simply knew it would happen and permits that freedom of choice. But that person has the freedom to change their mind and choose Jesus if they want. It wouldn't be freedom if God created a person and made them go to hell.
But if the person can change their mind, then God would have been wrong. That would mean that God had the wrong impression of what the person was going to do.
God cannot be wrong. God sees and knows the big picture for all our lives simultaneously, from birth to death and beyond. If someone changed their mind a thousand times, God would have known they were going to do so. They were free to change their mind any number of times. God simply knew what the ultimate decision was going to be.
All I'm saying is that it gives us good reason to believe it to be true. It would be up to you to decide. But to assert that this is absolutely not evidence requires that person to present evidence that disproves the accounts of Jesus. Otherwise, the only honest assessment the non-believer can make is that they don't believe it to be true.
3) Here is an illustration: What you are saying is our life is like a CD. God pushes play (birth) and we have no choice but to project what has been recorded. Therefore, God predestines your whole life. What I am saying is that our life is like an interactive CD-ROM. It contains all humanly possible choices we could ever make. God pushes "play" (birth) and when we get old enough to make our own choices, we are free to do so. God simply knows what we will choose. That is all.
If God knows all the possible choices we can make, but doesn't know exactly which one of the choices we make, then he is not omniscient. How do you explain Ps. 139:16? It says "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!", which basically implies predestination.
1) God is omniscient because He knows what we will choose. Ps. 139 is all about God's omniscience and omnipresence. Ps. 139:16 is saying that God knew of the life we would live and everything we would do before we were even born. If God knows all this, to "write it in a book" does not mean you are not free to choose the way to live your life as it happens. God simply already knows what you will do and lets you do so.
2) For example, right now, I could make a list of 100 off-the-wall, completely out of the ordinary things I could do in the next 10 min. to try to "trick" God and do something "unexpected" or something He didn't predict. I'll make my list of 100 things and pick one. But guess what? I'll be extra sneaky and secretly think of something that I will do but NOT put it on my list and do that! In that moment, I am freely doing what I want, even trying to trick God.
3) But the problem is- God knew before I was born that I was going to make that list. He knew I was going to think of that "extra sneaky" thing and He knew the extra, extra, sneaky thing I didn't tell you- that I was going to do none of them.
4) God can schedule our days but what is a schedule? A plan. God has a great plan for our lives but if some of us don't want God, then we don't want His plan. We are free to have our own plan if we want. Just like a parent has great plans for their children, children often do something else. Unlike parents, or any human, God simply knows the plans we will make and gives us that freedom.
5) If God really predestined our lives in a fatalistic/deterministic sense, wouldn't it make more sense that He would only allow good things to happen so He wouldn't get angry? Wouldn't God getting angry be a sign that we are not doing what He wants? And if we are not doing what He wants, wouldn't that mean we are freely making our own choices?
That's one of the many contradictions that plagues the Bible. See how ridiculous it is? God could easily make himself happy by forcing all people to do what he wants them to. If that would go against him being a "God of love", or if free will makes him happy, then why is he angry? We're stuck. God wants people to do what he wants, and because they don't, he's angry...but God can't *make* them do what he wants, because that would make him angry, since free will makes him happy.
1) How is this a contradiction? It is not. If a parent wants their child to clean their room, the child doesn't and the parents get angry, how is that a contradiction? It is as simple as this: God could make us do what He wants but He doesn't. He desires that we do good and seek God but He knows many won't and still grants our freedom. He has shown His anger in the OT because God hates sin, but still grants us the freedom.
2) In the OT, we see God punishing- partly because He hates sin and because He had a good reason and a greater plan in mind- Jesus. He is paving the way for Jesus to come because it is vital to salvation. It is better to save some than to loose all. There are things God doesn't want us to do but He doesn't go around stopping everyone because that wouldn't be freedom or love. The granting of freedom is not a license to do evil.
Doesn't Ps. 139:16 imply predestination though? It says that God scheduled out the days of your life. If God knows everything, then, yes, as you say, he knows the choices that you will face. But he would also have to know which one you would choose with absolute certainty. If God knows the possible choices, but what we actually do, then He is not omniscient.
What I am saying is that God knows all of the possible choices we could make AND given a certain situation where you would have to make one choice among several, God also knows which specific one you will choose. God would still be omniscient. (FYI- whenever I use all-caps on words, I am not screaming or anything- it is the only way I know to add emphasis to words in these comments)
3H) Unfortunately, to say it is evidence of no god is not logical because regarding the existence of a certain thing, it is impossible to have evidence (something) of nothing (no god.)When establishing if something exists, how can you show me something (evidence) that proves nothing? Evidence is physical by nature. There can be no PHYSICAL evidence of NOTHING.
Erm...Did i really say "Evidence of no God"? I meant "evidence against God". For instance, the fossil record is evidence against creationism, because it suggests a real explanation--namely, evolution. Similarly, evil is evidence against God, because it suggests a real explanation. I think you're using the argument that it's impossible to prove a universal negative.
Ok- sorry if I misinterpreted. How is the fossil record evidence against creationism? How is evil an evidence against God? It again, assumes God should do something and would do something. It is more logical that if God exists, he is merely giving us our freedom. What qualifies as a "real" explanation?
Creationism can never be a real explanation, because it explains nothing about the nature of life. It makes no testable predictions. Saying that lightning is caused by magic isn't a real explanation either, for the same reason. If evolution is true, then creationism is false. That's how the fossil record is evidence against creationism.
1) If God created everything we see, it doesn't change what we know about these things in themselves. It would only explain how it got there. It is already a mystery to science as to what caused the "Big Bang" and we accept that. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." This in no way contradicts the theory of the Big Bang. I don't think a Creationist would say that lightning is caused by magic. If one does, I'd stay away!
2) The fossil record presents problems for evolution- particularly the Cambrian explosion. What the fossil record reveals is not slow gradual change of evolving species but fast, sudden appearance of several phyla, fully formed, in a very short time span. We hear that evolution is "proven" all the time.
The Cambrian explosion isn't evidence against evolution; I answered that in my latest video. It's based on a misconception of evolution. You're absolutely right, in a sense. Gradualism may very well be totally wrong; S. J. Gould and Niles Eldredge proved that, but evolution is still true. Just because gradualism is wrong, doesn't mean that the mechanism of evolution is false. Basically, the rate of evolutionary change may not be constant, but it still happens. Read "Finding Darwin's God".
3) Microevolution is proven but is applicable to a living thing of its own kind. It is the macroevolution that is not proven- one species becoming another. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record anywhere.
Creationism isn't a real explanation because it makes no testable predictions about life. Evolution does, therefore it is falsifiable. See my reply to your questions regarding evolution (I forget which video that is...) The point is that the truth of evolution entails the falseness of creationism. Be careful, though--disproving creationism is NOT the same as proving evolution. It doesn't work both ways.
Why must explanations be considered real if they are testable? Scientists say the universe began with the Big Bang but how can we test this? Shouldn't we then by your definition, consider the Big Bang not a real explanation? What would happen if (macro)evolution was proven to be false? The scientific community is not in complete agreement that evolution is proven.
Secondly, there's something called the contrapositive. In logic, if someone says "if A then B", we can say "if not B, then not A". This is called the contrapositive. For instance, if we say "if leprechauns exist, then pots of gold coins will spontaneously appear out of nowhere", then, we can conclude: "pots of gold coins don't spontaneously appear. Therefore, leprechauns don't exist." See the connection?
Yes, I see. You have to be careful though not to commit the non sequitur logical fallacy (Info that does not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.) How can we know that leprechauns existing necessitates that pots of gold coins will appear if we, in the conclusion assert leprechauns do not exist? Because, if they really do NOT exist, then it is not valid to assert their existence requires pots of gold coins to appear.
Sorry, you're right. I missed an "f"--I meant to say "iff" (if and only if). If leprechauns are the ONLY possible way for pots of gold to appear magically, and pots of gold don't appear magically, then we can assume that leprechauns don't exist (or that they can't produce gold).
If and ONLY if is what I meant. Again, if leprechauns are the ONLY possible way that gold pots can appear, and pots of gold don't appear, then leprechauns don't exist.
1) That's fine but the problem remains. It ends up being a circular argument- How can we SAY or KNOW it is true that "leprechauns are the ONLY possible way for pots of gold to appear magically" if we don't even know if they exist in the first place or have any evidence that would support this claim?
Yeah, that's right. Leprechauns are basically unfalsifiable, but if we find no evidence that they exist, then there's no reason to believe in them. Furthermore, if there is a logical contradiction in the definition of a leprechaun, a leprechaun cannot exist. If a leprechaun cannot exist, a leprechaun does not exist.
2) Logically, to really know this, a leprechaun would have to exist and make the gold appear to really KNOW if it is true and accurate to assert that "leprechauns are the ONLY possible way for pots of gold to appear magically." But then it would become a moot point.
Yes, that's exactly what I said and meant. If leprechauns are the ONLY way for pots of gold to appear, and pots of gold don't appear, then leprechauns don't exist. Or, leprechauns don't have the power to make pots of gold appear. Or, we just haven't found pots of gold that magically appear because we can't search the whole universe. So in that sense, yes, leprechauns are unfalsifiable. But so is God.
1A) We would then have to look at evidence and to logic to see how God and leprechauns hold up. With leprechauns, logically, they are created beings. Who created them? And who created the leprechaun creators? We run into the impossible/illogical problem of infinite regress of causes. What evidence do we have that they actually existed? I don't know of any. God is uncreated- it is a mystery but not illogical. We have evidence of God in the Bible.
2A) Archaeology and history verifies thousands of evidences, confirming the people, places, and events in the Bible. No shred of any evidence exists that disproves the slightest detail in the Bible. Thousands of eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus at the time copied transcripts several times and they spread to several, distant places.
That's a lie. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's true. Prove that the Exodus happened. It says that there were 600,000 men (not including women and children) floating around the Sinai peninsula for 40 years. Notice that there is no evidence for this whole floating nation. Prove that Moses parted the Red Sea. Evolution disproves creation. The bible is full of errors.
1) No offense, but you may think it is a lie but if I were to try and knowingly present a lie to you and call it truth, I would not be doing what is properly Christian. I cannot prove the Exodus account happened. If there is evidence, I do not know of any. There are countless examples where Biblical scholars scratched their heads over scripture that seemed to be incorrect, but through time, archaeology has found something that clears up the issue.
I've read several modern books which time and again bring up the point that older (pre WWII) archaeologists' assumptions about the archeological truth of the Bible were false. These books are "Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology", "The Bible Unearthed", "The View from Nebo", "It Ain't Necessarily So", "The Mythic Past", and "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives"
2) Perhaps one day, evidence will be found. Some things are left to faith. We must remember with these questions you have here, there is no evidence that disproves these events but I recognize that is not evidence that it happened. I'd rather not discuss evolution, simply because I find it pointless in that there are too many variables to reach a proven conclusion. I do maintain though, that (macro)evolution is not proven.
If you maintain that macroevolution is not proven, please see my video refutation of your video. See that talk.origins page I linked you to entitled "29+ evidences for macroevolution".
3) In spite of millions of generations we have observed, scientists cannot even get E.coli bacteria to become something else, given its 20 minute time to create a new generation. We cannot conclude that the Bible is full of errors if there is no evidence to prove or disprove a particular issue, we assume evolution is proven, and there are logical, archaeological, and historical explanations for the difficulties.
*sigh* you really need to expand your knowledge of experiments on speciation (macroevolution) beyond the 1980s. Diane Dodd reproduced speciation in fruit flies within 8 generations. Again, see my video refutation of your video on evolution (previously I had said this was my latest video--it is not; it's actually my third latest, I think. Anyway, it's the one that has "forjesus220" in the title).
What do you mean "become anything else"? They certainly became a separate species of fruit fly, if that's what you mean. The term "fruit fly" covers a broad range of animals. If you're looking for observed instances of different families, orders, classes, phyla, etc. evolving, I'm sorry. Nobody has seen that happen. However, there is evidence of it. I gave you a website that had about 30 evidences.
According to 1 Chron 22:14, King David's army had around 1.5 million men. That's an idiotic exaggeration and there is no evidence to support it. The US Army had 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001, for reference.
Oh, sorry. 1 Chron 22:14 says that David gives Solomon 100,000 talents (about 3,000 tons) of gold and 1,000,000 of silver, which is another ridiculous exaggeration. The verse I meant to type in was 1 Chron 21:5, which says that David had 1.1 mil men from Israel and 470,000 from Judah. 2 Sam 24:9, on the other hand, says there were 800k from Israel and 500k from Judah. Just another contradiction for you.
1A) In 2 Sam, the number of men of valor who drew the sword was 800k but didn't include the standing army of 288k described in 1 Chron 27:1-15 or the 12k attached to Jerusalem shown in 2 Chron 1:14. Add these up and you get 1.1 mil. men. The 470k in 1 Chron 21 didn't include the 30k men of Judah mentioned in 2 Sam 6:1. If you look at 1 Chron 21:6, we clearly see that Joab had not completed the counting of the men of Judah.
I don't understand how you make the assumption that 2 Sam doesn't include the 288k described in 1 Chron. 2 Sam says 800k and 500k; 1 Chron says 1.1m and 470k. In any case, there is no evidence that David's army was anywhere near so powerful. As I said before, the US Army had 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.
So what? Again, archeology verifies The Titanic and The Odyssey, too, but that doesn't mean that those stories are true. By the way, when was Jesus born? According to Luke 1:5, King Herod lived when Jesus was born, but according to Luke 2:1, Gov. Cyrinius took a census of "the world". Unfortunately, Herod died in 4 BC and Cyrinius took his post in the Empire in 6 AD according to all reliable historical sources.
1C) Notice that Luke 2:2 says, "This was the first census..." which implies a 2nd, etc. and refers back to verse 1 and does not imply that Cyrenius conducted the census. Encyc. Britannica states "Every 5 years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C." Luke is recognizing that the census decree stems from Augustus.
2C) Conducting a census was a big project, often taking years to conduct and complete. It is possible that Augustus entrusted Cyrenius to the census during the transition from Saturninus'administration to Varus'in 7 B.C. There was a Latin inscription discovered in 1764 that indicates that Cyrenius served as Syria's governor on at least 2 occasions.
3C) It is worth noting that Luke is a proven, reliable historian. Sir William Ramsey shows that as Luke refers to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, and had never made a mistake in his history.
3A) The eyewitnesses were available for years to be cross-examined but there is absolutely no evidence of anyone saying the events surrounding Jesus were false. You may say this is not evidence but in order for you to truly assert it not to be evidence, you would have to disprove all of it.
Oh really? According to the Bible, Jesus supposedly appeared to Paul. Before he appeared, Paul (aka Saul) was a Christian-hater and did his utmost to punish the Christians. Why can't Jesus appear to us then? I don't hate Christians but I don't believe AT ALL in the story of Jesus. Wasn't Paul's "free will" taken away? Paul saw Jesus crucified, and he saw Jesus walking around after his death. That's undeniable "proof" of Jesus' divinity. It would take away his free will.
1) No one made Paul do anything. His eyes were simply opened to the truth. I think any person really would want to know the truth. Taking away Paul's free will would insinuate that Paul was forced to do something he didn't want to. Yet we see that Paul was passionate about His belief in God and wanted to spread Christianity. What would it take for a Christian-hater, seeking to put Christians to death to suddenly become the opposite? There is something to be said there.
2) That is fine, I respect your decision not to believe in the account of Jesus. From your perspective, if Jesus really was real and the stories of Him in the Bible were accurate, wouldn't you want to know? Jesus will appear to us again.
So what? There's no evidence of anyone saying that, for instance, Siddharta Gautama did not become enlightened and overcome the demon Mara. Buddha had disciples, too. I apologize profusely for using the argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance says that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or something is false because it hasn't been proven true. I may have said that the Gospels are false because they haven't been proven true. I caution you not to do the converse.
1) No apology necessary. The difference with Christianity is that history verifies many events in the Bible. And the fact that the evidence made public at the time when the witnesses were around to be cross-examined was not accused to be false. I believe the Gospels to be true but agree they cannot be said to be proven true just because they haven't been proven false. If Christianity were proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'd abandon it.
2) When you really study the history of what these people did for Jesus there really is no logical reason anyone would willingly die and sometimes along with their family for a cause that was false. Also, at the time, no one was going around saying the Jesus thing was a hoax or a lie.
3) It would be like if you stopped what you were doing today, completely changed everything you believe, including your lifestyle, went to faraway places you have never been before to spread a message to many people who will potentially imprison, torture, or kill you for what you have to say. Would you do that for a lie? Would several people get together and do it for a lie? Would you do it if you weren't absolutely sure?
You assume that God exists and that God wants everything to be good. Those are two big presuppositions. Then you say that rejection of God is evidence of free will, even though the rejection of God goes against your first two assumptions. I could just as well say that "If there is a God, and God wants good, and people reject God, then that's evidence that there is no God, or at least not one who wants good".
1I) Do you not see that you presuppose that God does not exist? Just because God desires something, doesn't necessarily mean He will cause it to happen. A parent wants their child to make good choices. But they (usually) don't attach strings to their arms and legs and make them do it. It is stronger testimony to our free choice.
2I) I respectfully would like to say the last sentence is not logical because "wanting" and the ability to take action does not necessitate action will be taken. I'd say this sentence is evidence that some people don't want/believe God under the assumption that God does exist.
2) No offense, but it really doesn't make any sense to conclude Jesus is a normal guy because He didn't perform a miracle that proved to everyone for all time. Faith is needed and God wants to preserve your freedom to chose Him or reject Him.
Now the second problem is...who needs faith? If God really is benevolent, why can't He just save us all? For that matter, why take the round-about way of having someone be brutally executed as a vicarious punishment for someone else's sins? Why not just forgive everyone? The whole "faith" thing seems to be a rationalization for why Jesus can't prove himself. I have yet to see extra-biblical proof that Jesus performed miracles and claimed divine status.
1A) "why can't He just save us all?" I like that scenario. I wish that is what the Bible said and was God's plan. But God is also a God of justice and sin must be paid for. For God to ignore sin would contradict His nature. Jesus dying for our sins also represents God doing what we cannot do- live a perfect life without sin.
2A) It is like God saying, "You can't be perfect, so I'll show you perfection. I desire to be with you but I cannot live in the presence of sin. But, sin must be paid for so you can be justified and made righteous before Me. The problem is, you cannot do it because as you are now, you are still in sin and will continue to be in sin.
3A) Therefore, I will pay the penalty for you. All I ask is that you accept me as Lord and try to seek Me." "Why not just forgive everyone?" Because part of being forgiven is recognizing sin and seeking to turn away from it. Many people don't even realize they are even doing anything sinful. God knows you will still fail but you must keep trying. I don't know of any extra-biblical proof that Jesus performed miracles.
4A) That requires faith and believing the eye witnesses- many of whom died horrible deaths along with their families because they witnessed something un-freaking-believable and couldn't help but spread the word.
Well then, why didn't Jesus prove his divinity to all future generations with 100% certainty? If he could, then we would all have to believe in him, and we would all be saved, according to Christianity. Jesus could, for instance, have left a large, burning cross in the sky hovering above New York City. Or he could just keep appearing to us. Why can't he prove himself with 100% certainty?
He can prove Himself and He will eventually. Why not now, for all? Because then faith would not be required. Faith and love are closely related. You would no longer have the freedom to choose or reject God. Which of these is true love: A love for God that is basically forced upon you? Or a love that exists for God that is chosen? Also, if we demand God prove Himself according to whatever standard we demand, who is calling the shots now?
Wait a minute...so, you say that Jesus could not perform real miracles that last to the present day without needing "eyewitness" reports because that would take away "free will". If it was okay for Jesus to take away the "free will" of all the disciples and the people who saw him resurrected, why is it not okay for him to take away my "free will"?
1) No, because I believe in those miracles. So apparently they have lasted for those who believe. Jesus did not take away the free will of the disciples. They were still free to believe in the miracles or to reject them. They were still free to look at resurrected Jesus and call Him an imposter or whatever. If there was a burning cross in the sky hovering above NYC would you believe in God or cite it a hoax?
How did Jesus not take away the free will of the disciples? He raised a dead dude! That's unfakably authentic PROOF that he's God. Jesus could just keep appearing to us and perform miracles to prove it, now, couldn't he?
But the disciples wanted to be with Jesus. They freely chose Him. It may be proof to those who witnessed it. What about the people who did not? He could keep appearing if He wanted to but that is not the plan. God has a plan according to His will and His ways and what we would often think is best, often is not.
2) You are still free to decide. Miracles aren't meant to serve as proof but rather evidence that requires faith that God exists. Proof would be God revealing Himself.
You're stuck in a strange cycle of circular reasoning...on the one hand, Jesus performs unverifiable miracles, "recorded" in the Bible, and these don't take away our free will, but once Jesus performs a real miracle that lasts till the present day, like moving a mountain or leaving a burning cross in the sky, that takes away our free will.
Lets suppose God placed a burning cross over NYC. In reality, Christians who know the Bible would know it is not of God because such an event is not spoken of there. For the sake of argument, God could do this but it does not take away anyone's free will. Some people will choose to believe it is of God and some would be free to say it was a cool laser light show.
Honestly, the crux of your argument is that God can't perform real, verifiable miracles like those aforementioned because doing so would make it so that God isn't "hidden". But God made himself a man (Jesus) and ran around performing miracles. That's no hidden God. Hundreds of people saw him resurrected. No non-divine being could resurrect himself. Why can't Jesus keep appearing to us?
1) God can but He requires faith. Proof (verified miracles) to everyone destroys faith. Faith deepens love because it is a trusting love for God that is freely chosen. On the other hand, God proving to everyone, "Hey, I exist!" forces everyone to acknowledge God exists. Then they are forced into accepting God or else they fear suffering consequences. That is right:
2) God in His almighty power humbled himself down to a man born as a baby, in a stable reeking of manure and urine, performed miracles, and ultimately died the most humiliating death on a cross. Why? To demonstrate the greatest act of love: To lay one's own life down for another and to pay for our sin- a punishment we deserve. When people say God is a God of love, they ignore He is a God of justice. God is the ultimate standard of goodness and righteousness.
3) To commit sin is to offend God and His law. For God to ignore it is to contradict his nature of being a God of justice. We have to consider WHO we are offending with our sin. God is infinite. Therefore, to offend God, becomes an infinite offense. Infinite offense deserves infinite punishment- Hell. This is hardcore stuff, but it is reality. Yet Jesus paid the price for those who place their faith and trust in Him.
4) We deserve the punishment but Jesus paid the price. Accepting Him makes one justified before God. Do you not see the incredible love God has for us and desires us to spend eternity with Him?
1) It's amazing when people say it is a fact the Bible is not historically accurate and has been changed many times when this is absolutely not true. Then they pass judgment on it. The epitome of their Biblical ignorance is revealed when they misquote and misinterpret passages. You are referring to John 20:29.
Why is there no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus' miracles? I'm sure there is *some* historical truth to the Bible...but then, there's some historical truth to the movie "Titanic" and "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey", but no one believes in Zeus, Aphrodite, Rose, and Jack. It's not that difficult for ancient people to write about some things that were real (i.e, kings, cities, kingdoms) and then make up some fictional events.
There was evidence: eye-witnesses. Eyewitnesses that could have been cross-examined long after the miracles. There is no contemporaneous evidence anywhere that asserts the miracles were false or that refuted the eyewitness testimonies. You have to understand that the culture of the people at that time. They were devoted to truth, examining evidence, and reporting things accurately. It would be up to you to prove those events were fictional.
2) "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus is referring to future believers of Jesus because eventually Jesus, the disciples, witnesses will be gone, etc. It does not negate the Christian teaching that we should examine the evidence. Thanks for serving as an example that many people don't even care to investigate any further than the textual surface. It only reveals intellectual shallowness.
It's hard to believe that anyone believes in this shit anymore. America's education system is fucked. You fundies really need to get your heads out of your asses and get some education into you.
Er...disregarding your rather tasteful language..you have a good point. Christians parrot whatever their misguided religious leaders tell them. The questions aren't ignorant. They make perfect sense. The fact is that the Bible is not a reliable historical source--it's been changed, many times. The quotes aren't out of context. This video assumes that atheism "has a shallow view of the world"? *sigh*
guy all stupid the church its satan things but they changeing good thing . you need to belive GOD see that goD in natural! Rocks waters ! and he is on the sky watching us ! thing about why mozes go to up the montain? he is see that GOD not the church! you need to love living creature and humans and natural thing they you see the goD!mentaly clear!
A response to all the "bad" people of Chistianity, now I'm not too good with sarcasm, but are you saying that Hitler was a good person? Tip when using sarcasm, make sure it can't be turned around on you.
Great Video!!!
BFOwings 2 years ago
i dont get it
monsterbaby73 3 years ago
FINALLLY thank GOD someone finally has been able to SAY IT in a way ive never been able to.. all i could ever say was, how do u explain sunsets, rainbows, volcanoes, snowflakes, fingerprints, everyone is unique and there will never be anyone else like u.. why do we all have the need to pour our heart and soul into.. anything.. soccer fans go nuts!! u can be passionate about anything right!! horse races, fights, competitions, SPORTS FANATICS? fact that everyone NEEDS to have faith is something..
SexiiCanadianShorti3 3 years ago
Indeed, I am glad you made those video. "All thinking men are atheist" Well that quote been clearly proven wrong. Even as a christian, I don't deny evolution, but the point you made was clear, nonetheless, evolution did have proved with some kind of changed, like a bird's beak would shrink, but genetic engineers have done the reverse evolution clock on the gene of a chicken, as results, a dino tail! So things can be unusual. I think a knuckle dragger that believes in God is defined as human.
JayTsunDayVis 3 years ago
As for me, I believe in the host to be literal, look up the host miracle of Italy. It's pretty neat.
JayTsunDayVis 3 years ago
I hate to say, but according to one of the famous quotes of Abraham Lincoln, he was an atheist or at least a non Christian.
JayTsunDayVis 3 years ago
Wonderful response!
godswordsheal 4 years ago
*sigh*
Every argument I have regarding God and Jesus was crushed by your video. I guess Jesus is lord and I should accept his gift.
-HeartofGOLD2007
HeartofGOLD2007 4 years ago
I don't see why God can't prove Jesus' divinity to everyone. First, Jesus' "miracles" would have taken away the free will of everyone who saw them--c'mon, if they were real, then he HAS to be divine! Secondly, God has no problem with leaving a sign on Earth for all future generations--according to Genesis 9:12-13, that's what rainbows are (we know today that rainbows are a result of refraction, but anyway). Matthew 17 says that God came out from the clouds and spoke. Why can't he do that today?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1B) Right, Jesus would be divine if the miracles are true if that is what you believe. But, some people at that time, asserted Jesus power to be evil or of the devil. Again, proving Jesus' divinity would mean God proves His existence to everyone and that choice to reject God is gone. He can do it and He will in the 2nd coming. You could say that God returning would take away free choice. In a sense it does but humans would have already made their free choice to accept or reject God.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Some people said that it was the devil? But how do you know that? If God really loves us, that implies that God does not want us to suffer. If he does not want us to suffer, then he doesn't want us to go to hell forever. That's why he sent Jesus, right? So then why can't he have everyone accept Jesus? That way, no one will suffer.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1D) If you read Luke 11:14-20, Matthew 12:22-30 and Matthew 9:27-34 you will see how Jesus was accused of His power being demonic. It just goes to show how things are perceived differently. It is true that God loves us, doesn't want us to suffer, and doesn't want us to go to Hell forever. To deny Jesus is to deny God's offer to save us. But if He MAKES us accept Him, that is not love. True love is freely chosen.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2D) All God asks is that you accept Jesus and His sacrifice and your sins are paid in full. God lovingly did what we could never do and paid the price we deserved. It seems so simple to accept God's offer but doing so requires one to humble himself and put God first and to trust in Him (faith.) It seems to some that God makes all these "rules" as a means to control us or to serve His ego. But He is God! He doesn't really NEED anything!
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3D) However, if you really study God's word, you'll find these "rules" are only because God IS all-knowing and only wants the best for us because the things we gravitate toward that are sinful, will only hurt ourselves and others in the end. It is very similar to the parent telling their child to do certain things for their own safety but the child often doesn't SEE the danger. But the parent KNOWS.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
God supposedly spoke to humanity before Jesus' time too. According to the story of the Tower of Babel, ancient people built a tower so high that it got to heaven. God took offense and came down, making all the people speak different languages, so that no one could understand the others (Gen 11). Of course, linguists know that languages evolved slowly over time, but today, we can build towers taller than ever before--the Burj Dubai is testament to that. Why doesn't God come down and chastise us?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1C) Genesis 10 tells us of the different languages. Genesis 11:1-9 is a "flashback" from when in Genesis 10 the languages were confused. Genesis 11 tells how the different languages originated (over time which would agree with linguists.) When God confused the languages it is not saying He created new languages. He confused the existing languages causing people to congregate with those who spoke their same language. They went and settled in other parts of the world.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
That wasn't really the major point of my reference to the Tower of Babel story...but in any case, at that this supposedly happened (ca. 2400 BC), there were already many different languages unintelligible to the others.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
It is not really certain when the Tower of Babel incident took place. In Genesis 11, we see the main goal here is many people from many different nations (and you would say many different languages) wanted to congregate and live in one place. It makes sense that in order to accomplish this, they would first, need to decide on one language. (Hence Genesis 11:1) Therefore, the other languages existed but they chose one to accomplish their purpose.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2C) God doesn't chastise us because Jesus mission on Earth is complete. We are waiting for the return. The Bible speaks of how God changes the method in which He speaks and interacts with us to serve a certain purpose. For God to reveal Himself in any way now that would prove He exists, like chastise us, would defeat Jesus whole purpose, rendering everything Jesus did including His sacrifice, pointless and would contradict His own word in the Bible.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Then why did God "reveal" himself before Jesus came? Does the Bible say "Oh, by the way, I won't be talking to humanity until I come again. Sorry!"? Could you please find that for me? Back then there was no hope for salvation anyway. How can people who lived before Jesus' time go to heaven? If they saw God, then they would have been forced to believe in him, but they couldn't be saved. These are all rationalizations for why God has never spoken to modern people directly.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1D) Everything that happened in the OT, including the way God revealed Himself to the people was to pave the way for Jesus to come. The Bible isn't THAT specific of God changing the way He communicates! See Hebrews 1:1-2 and Jesus' words in Luke 16:16 to see examples of these. The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice. Is it justice that pre-Jesus people are excluded?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2D) If they saw God and believed in Him why would they not be saved? How could God ever reach out to us without revealing Himself in someway? He chose certain people to achieve a purpose. If God were really there, wouldn't you want to know?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2B) It will mark a time where God returns, the people have made their choice, and there will be a new existence. Rainbows: Rainbows still occurred before that. God simply wanted the rainbow from that moment on to serve as a reminder of His promise. It would be like looking up at a star in the sky and giving it a name even though it was already there.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Hmm...I think it says "I set my bow in the sky". He "set" his bow after the flood. This implies that there were no rainbows before, because up until that point, God hadn't put his bow (rainbows) there.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Not really because God says, He "sets His bow." There is no real indication it is for the 1st time. The intent here was that God wanted the rainbow to take on a new meaning and serve as a reminder. Just like an olive branch represents peace but it existed before we created that symbolism.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3B) It would be great if God still spoke to us that way but God spoke that way in the past for a reason- all in the higher purpose of ensuring Jesus came and died. Once resurrected Jesus left, that marked the end of the Earthly mission. We are now waiting for the return.
From your perspective, I can totally understand how that seems to be a flimsy explanation to say, "Well, God just doesn't speak to us this way anymore." It comes back to faith.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Well, doesn't that destroy the "free will" of all the disciples and everyone who witnessed Jesus' miracles? If they witnessed his miracles and they were real, they can't possibly deny Jesus' divinity. If the disciples' "free will" can be destroyed, why not ours?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1E) Again, Jesus was accused of deriving His power from the devil. Just because they saw something miraculous didn't require them to do anything about it. Don't forget that Judas betrayed Jesus. I don't know about you, but I would WANT to witness those miracles and KNOW I was in the presence of God. I think deep down, some people would really want to know if God really existed and would welcome it.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2E) If Jesus didn't do any miracles or anything extraordinary, what sort of motivation would there really be to assert He was God? I doubt Christianity would last long if all Jesus did was tell some cool stories and just went around saying He was God and did nothing else. The disciples were the chosen ones to help further Jesus cause, yet they were not forced to do anything. They freely obeyed. It is also God's plan, not ours. What we think would be best is often not.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
4B) Although, the Bible does speak of how God speaks to the people and how He changes His methods: Hebrews 1:1-2. Despite this, I believe in God. I think God wants to provide just enough evidence to indicate He may exist but not allow anything that serves proof He exists. Think of it this way- if now we knew God existed beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would in a sense, force many to respond a certain way. But if God allows us to choose Him freely; it is a love that uncoerced.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
No offense, but you're just dodging the free will question. The reason that Jesus can't appear to anyone and that he never performed any miracles that last to the present day, such as placing a burning cross in the sky forever and writing about it in the Bible, or calculating pi to the trillionth place in the Bible, is because he was a normal guy.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) None taken. I'm trying to answer as best as I can. I was hoping that you would see that miracles have lasted to the present day by faith from those who believe but not for all. Jesus could place a burning cross in the sky forever and write about it in the Bible, etc. which could be convincing proof, but what about faith? Faith would no longer be needed.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Well...I see two problems with this explanation. Before we begin, I'd like to apologize for any rudeness that I've expressed towards you. I think we should start on a new leaf as intellectual equals. Firstly, the whole "free will" argument makes no sense if God is omniscient. If He is, then He knows what we're going to do before we do it, which implies that some people are born to be damned and some are born to be saved.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) No apology necessary. Sometimes these things seem to get heated but please know I respect your views. It's also tough trying to cram everything in 500 or less without seeming abrupt. I'm glad you brought up the issue you have with God's omniscience. It is true that God knows what we're going to do before we do it BUT it doesn't mean that God made them to be doomed.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) The person is free to do whatever they want BUT God knows everything the person will do & permits them to have their freedom. Here's a simple illustration: If I present a child with 2 choices- 1. A piece of cake. And 2. A plate full of dirt & worms & say, "Eat which ever you want." The child is free to eat what they want but I know what they're going to pick. Again, a simplistic example, but in God's omniscience, He can know our every choice we will make without denying our freedom.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Okay, but how do you know that God actually gives us a real choice? It's nicer to believe that we have a choice, but that doesn't make it true. If God knows everything that we will do, then he knows whether or not we will be saved or damned beforehand; there is no choice involved. In the case of the cake, everyone will reject dirt. But in real life, will everyone reject non-Christianity in favor of Jesus (cake)?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1F) Imagine if a video camera recorded everything you did for a day. You could easily go back, watch the tape, and know certain things that were going to happen before you actually saw yourself doing them. Yet, you see you were free to do what you want. Do you feel coerced throughout the day?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Honestly, "free will" is a sham; the analogy of cake doesn't make a lot of sense, because then there's only one choice that someone would make. And no, you don't really know with 100% certainty what the kid would take; maybe a mischievous one would take the dirt and throw it at you. But if God knows *everything* with *infallible* certainty, then there is no free will. Anyway, not all real decisions are like this in which
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1G) If you think free will is a sham then I respect your view. Again, that was a simple example. The point was to show how we could know what someone would choose beforehand which was obviously in a very limited capacity compared to God. An omniscient God would know much more complex decisions we would make where it would be impossible for us to predict. Sometimes we are presented with several choices with too many variables to predict.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2G) It wouldn't surprise me if a kid chose dirt! But the whole point of this example was to illustrate that God KNOWS what you will do and PERMITS your freedom even though it may not be the best choice.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
This makes no sense. If God "KNOWS" what we are going to do, then He can never give any free will. If He did, then it would be possible to surprise God. God might be able to give some sort of superficial free will if He could see, say, two or three minutes into the past/future. But the point is he can see everything (think Toy Story).
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) It makes more sense that if God does exist, that He knows all, and has the ability to control things to comply with His desire, that He could act upon it. Therefore, if God was a god of "good" would you assume that only good things would happen? If God were a god of evil, would you assume only bad things would happen? What we see is good and bad happening.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) Doesn't it seem more logical that if God exists, He is only letting us have our freedom? Otherwise, if we had no freedom, God would be forcing us to do what He wants. If God really is a God of love, this would not be a valid expression of it.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2F) God prefers that we only do good things. If He really gave us no choice, wouldn't it make sense that He would not allow bad things to happen in the world? The cake/dirt example was simplistic. Sometimes the choices are not so clear. Consider this- what if the person who gave you dirt as a choice, lied to you and told you it was finely crushed Oreos!? It does seem that God sometimes makes a person who is doomed. But God makes the person.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
But the question remains; how do you *know* that God really gives us free will? I think it boils down to "That's just the way I want it to be". But wanting something to be a certain way doesn't make it that way.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
I like the last sentence. Now, read that sentence and assume God's perspective. Because God knows everything, has the power to do anything according to His nature, doesn't mean He will make it so. If God did not give us free will, He would not be a God of love.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3F) The person dooms himself by the wrong choices he makes. Many times and in many ways, God says, "Here I am" but many don't want to listen, believe, etc. It is just further testimony that the person was free to do what they want. The fact that there are people existing who reject God is even further proof of our free will because if God only desired good, why make people who will reject Him. God simply just knows what the person will do and grants them that freedom.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
In response to 2F), you're right. It doesn't make sense that bad things happen. It's a contradiction. It's evidence against the existence of God. How do you know that the person is the one who makes the choice? How do you know that God really gives him a choice? People who reject God isn't proof of free will; it's evidence that there is no God (or at least not a good one). You're logic is pretty much circular.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1H) You see bad things happening and say it is a contradiction to God's existence. But is this the REAL truth? No offense, but it is logically circular to say people who reject God is evidence that there is no (good) God. How is this evidence?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2H) But it is logical to say that if God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, God of love who desires only good and could theoretically make us do good if He acted upon that. It is evidence that we have free will because people still do bad things despite God's ability. You may not agree but it is still a logical viewpoint.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
If God is able to make the world the best place ever but is unwilling, then God is not good. If God is willing, but not able, then He is not omnipotent. It is impossible for God to know what we are going to do and still give us a choice. If it were possible, then we could "surprise" God. But God can't be surprised, because He already knows everything.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) God is able and willing. His promise IS to restore the world. But it is according to His timing. Let's turn the tables and look at it from God's perspective: God is able and willing to restore the world but some people are unwilling to accept Him. Why should God show grace to these people in the same way for those who do accept God? How is it impossible for God to be omniscient and still give us free will? God is not bound by our time.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
If God is not "bound by our time", we get stuck in what I call "religious agnosticism"--worship of something that we don't/can't understand. Furthermore, if God is not "bound by time", then how can He answer prayers? Lastly, the Bible says that God must feel human emotions and exist in our time, because according to Is. 13:13 God causes earthquakes when angry.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) The Bible tells us a lot of who God is. But that becomes a matter of believing it to be true. Why would God have to be bound by time in order to answer prayer? He already knows when and what you will pray for. I respectfully say that simply reading Is. 13:13 and then drawing a conclusion ignores the context. Is. 13:6 starts an account of Judgment Day (the return of Jesus) "the day of the Lord is near." Reiterated in v.9 and in v.13 "In the day of His burning anger."
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) From our perspective, if Jesus is going to return, it will obviously be some "DAY." Because Jesus can enter in our time at a certain time does not mean He is bound by it. Jesus is simply not BOUND by time because He has always existed and always will. Yes, God does get angry and often reveals His anger. In the context of Is. 13, it is Judgment Day. God is angry and being also the God of justice, has come to reveal the truth and to rightfully bring justice to a world succumbed to sin.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) From His perspective, He can see our whole life from birth to death. We cannot surprise God because He KNOWS everything. There is absolutely no necessitation for God to act on a desire. God desires good but He won't force it on you. He wants it to be your choice. Just because God knows everything you will do does not mean you have no choice.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Again, you assume that God has knowledge of the possible choices we can make, but doesn't know which one we will choose. How do you know this? If God doesn't know what we will choose, he cannot be omniscient. If God KNOWS everything then it's impossible to do something that he doesn't expect. If he expects every one of your actions, then you have no free will.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1A) Again, being omniscient means to be all-knowing which would mean knowing all possible choices AND all actual choices made. This is what the Bible teaches about God. Correct- it is impossible to do something God doesn't expect. I wouldn't say that God really expects anything. Expectation implies an element of uncertainty or "likely but no real guarantee." God simply knows all. How does God simply knowing what you will do mean you have no free will or that He is controlling you?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2A) It is kind of like going to a psychic and they tell you your friend will win the lottery tomorrow. The next day, your friend calls you to tell you they won the lottery. Would you assume or accuse the psychic of arranging for your friend to win? No, the psychic simply knew it was going to happen. It's that simple.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
But that's the difference between God and a psychic. If God "knows" you're going to hell, there's nothing you can do to change it, because if God knows it, it must be true.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
If God knows someone is going to hell it is only because He knew that by that person's free choice, they would reject Jesus. God didn't make them reject Jesus- they did it on their own and God simply knew it would happen and permits that freedom of choice. But that person has the freedom to change their mind and choose Jesus if they want. It wouldn't be freedom if God created a person and made them go to hell.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
But if the person can change their mind, then God would have been wrong. That would mean that God had the wrong impression of what the person was going to do.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
God cannot be wrong. God sees and knows the big picture for all our lives simultaneously, from birth to death and beyond. If someone changed their mind a thousand times, God would have known they were going to do so. They were free to change their mind any number of times. God simply knew what the ultimate decision was going to be.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
All I'm saying is that it gives us good reason to believe it to be true. It would be up to you to decide. But to assert that this is absolutely not evidence requires that person to present evidence that disproves the accounts of Jesus. Otherwise, the only honest assessment the non-believer can make is that they don't believe it to be true.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3) Here is an illustration: What you are saying is our life is like a CD. God pushes play (birth) and we have no choice but to project what has been recorded. Therefore, God predestines your whole life. What I am saying is that our life is like an interactive CD-ROM. It contains all humanly possible choices we could ever make. God pushes "play" (birth) and when we get old enough to make our own choices, we are free to do so. God simply knows what we will choose. That is all.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
If God knows all the possible choices we can make, but doesn't know exactly which one of the choices we make, then he is not omniscient. How do you explain Ps. 139:16? It says "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!", which basically implies predestination.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) God is omniscient because He knows what we will choose. Ps. 139 is all about God's omniscience and omnipresence. Ps. 139:16 is saying that God knew of the life we would live and everything we would do before we were even born. If God knows all this, to "write it in a book" does not mean you are not free to choose the way to live your life as it happens. God simply already knows what you will do and lets you do so.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) For example, right now, I could make a list of 100 off-the-wall, completely out of the ordinary things I could do in the next 10 min. to try to "trick" God and do something "unexpected" or something He didn't predict. I'll make my list of 100 things and pick one. But guess what? I'll be extra sneaky and secretly think of something that I will do but NOT put it on my list and do that! In that moment, I am freely doing what I want, even trying to trick God.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3) But the problem is- God knew before I was born that I was going to make that list. He knew I was going to think of that "extra sneaky" thing and He knew the extra, extra, sneaky thing I didn't tell you- that I was going to do none of them.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
4) God can schedule our days but what is a schedule? A plan. God has a great plan for our lives but if some of us don't want God, then we don't want His plan. We are free to have our own plan if we want. Just like a parent has great plans for their children, children often do something else. Unlike parents, or any human, God simply knows the plans we will make and gives us that freedom.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
5) If God really predestined our lives in a fatalistic/deterministic sense, wouldn't it make more sense that He would only allow good things to happen so He wouldn't get angry? Wouldn't God getting angry be a sign that we are not doing what He wants? And if we are not doing what He wants, wouldn't that mean we are freely making our own choices?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
That's one of the many contradictions that plagues the Bible. See how ridiculous it is? God could easily make himself happy by forcing all people to do what he wants them to. If that would go against him being a "God of love", or if free will makes him happy, then why is he angry? We're stuck. God wants people to do what he wants, and because they don't, he's angry...but God can't *make* them do what he wants, because that would make him angry, since free will makes him happy.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) How is this a contradiction? It is not. If a parent wants their child to clean their room, the child doesn't and the parents get angry, how is that a contradiction? It is as simple as this: God could make us do what He wants but He doesn't. He desires that we do good and seek God but He knows many won't and still grants our freedom. He has shown His anger in the OT because God hates sin, but still grants us the freedom.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) In the OT, we see God punishing- partly because He hates sin and because He had a good reason and a greater plan in mind- Jesus. He is paving the way for Jesus to come because it is vital to salvation. It is better to save some than to loose all. There are things God doesn't want us to do but He doesn't go around stopping everyone because that wouldn't be freedom or love. The granting of freedom is not a license to do evil.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Doesn't Ps. 139:16 imply predestination though? It says that God scheduled out the days of your life. If God knows everything, then, yes, as you say, he knows the choices that you will face. But he would also have to know which one you would choose with absolute certainty. If God knows the possible choices, but what we actually do, then He is not omniscient.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
What I am saying is that God knows all of the possible choices we could make AND given a certain situation where you would have to make one choice among several, God also knows which specific one you will choose. God would still be omniscient. (FYI- whenever I use all-caps on words, I am not screaming or anything- it is the only way I know to add emphasis to words in these comments)
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3H) Unfortunately, to say it is evidence of no god is not logical because regarding the existence of a certain thing, it is impossible to have evidence (something) of nothing (no god.)When establishing if something exists, how can you show me something (evidence) that proves nothing? Evidence is physical by nature. There can be no PHYSICAL evidence of NOTHING.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Erm...Did i really say "Evidence of no God"? I meant "evidence against God". For instance, the fossil record is evidence against creationism, because it suggests a real explanation--namely, evolution. Similarly, evil is evidence against God, because it suggests a real explanation. I think you're using the argument that it's impossible to prove a universal negative.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Ok- sorry if I misinterpreted. How is the fossil record evidence against creationism? How is evil an evidence against God? It again, assumes God should do something and would do something. It is more logical that if God exists, he is merely giving us our freedom. What qualifies as a "real" explanation?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Creationism can never be a real explanation, because it explains nothing about the nature of life. It makes no testable predictions. Saying that lightning is caused by magic isn't a real explanation either, for the same reason. If evolution is true, then creationism is false. That's how the fossil record is evidence against creationism.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) If God created everything we see, it doesn't change what we know about these things in themselves. It would only explain how it got there. It is already a mystery to science as to what caused the "Big Bang" and we accept that. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." This in no way contradicts the theory of the Big Bang. I don't think a Creationist would say that lightning is caused by magic. If one does, I'd stay away!
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) The fossil record presents problems for evolution- particularly the Cambrian explosion. What the fossil record reveals is not slow gradual change of evolving species but fast, sudden appearance of several phyla, fully formed, in a very short time span. We hear that evolution is "proven" all the time.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
The Cambrian explosion isn't evidence against evolution; I answered that in my latest video. It's based on a misconception of evolution. You're absolutely right, in a sense. Gradualism may very well be totally wrong; S. J. Gould and Niles Eldredge proved that, but evolution is still true. Just because gradualism is wrong, doesn't mean that the mechanism of evolution is false. Basically, the rate of evolutionary change may not be constant, but it still happens. Read "Finding Darwin's God".
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
3) Microevolution is proven but is applicable to a living thing of its own kind. It is the macroevolution that is not proven- one species becoming another. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record anywhere.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Creationism isn't a real explanation because it makes no testable predictions about life. Evolution does, therefore it is falsifiable. See my reply to your questions regarding evolution (I forget which video that is...) The point is that the truth of evolution entails the falseness of creationism. Be careful, though--disproving creationism is NOT the same as proving evolution. It doesn't work both ways.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Why must explanations be considered real if they are testable? Scientists say the universe began with the Big Bang but how can we test this? Shouldn't we then by your definition, consider the Big Bang not a real explanation? What would happen if (macro)evolution was proven to be false? The scientific community is not in complete agreement that evolution is proven.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Secondly, there's something called the contrapositive. In logic, if someone says "if A then B", we can say "if not B, then not A". This is called the contrapositive. For instance, if we say "if leprechauns exist, then pots of gold coins will spontaneously appear out of nowhere", then, we can conclude: "pots of gold coins don't spontaneously appear. Therefore, leprechauns don't exist." See the connection?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Yes, I see. You have to be careful though not to commit the non sequitur logical fallacy (Info that does not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.) How can we know that leprechauns existing necessitates that pots of gold coins will appear if we, in the conclusion assert leprechauns do not exist? Because, if they really do NOT exist, then it is not valid to assert their existence requires pots of gold coins to appear.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Sorry, you're right. I missed an "f"--I meant to say "iff" (if and only if). If leprechauns are the ONLY possible way for pots of gold to appear magically, and pots of gold don't appear magically, then we can assume that leprechauns don't exist (or that they can't produce gold).
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
If and ONLY if is what I meant. Again, if leprechauns are the ONLY possible way that gold pots can appear, and pots of gold don't appear, then leprechauns don't exist.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) That's fine but the problem remains. It ends up being a circular argument- How can we SAY or KNOW it is true that "leprechauns are the ONLY possible way for pots of gold to appear magically" if we don't even know if they exist in the first place or have any evidence that would support this claim?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Yeah, that's right. Leprechauns are basically unfalsifiable, but if we find no evidence that they exist, then there's no reason to believe in them. Furthermore, if there is a logical contradiction in the definition of a leprechaun, a leprechaun cannot exist. If a leprechaun cannot exist, a leprechaun does not exist.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
2) Logically, to really know this, a leprechaun would have to exist and make the gold appear to really KNOW if it is true and accurate to assert that "leprechauns are the ONLY possible way for pots of gold to appear magically." But then it would become a moot point.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Yes, that's exactly what I said and meant. If leprechauns are the ONLY way for pots of gold to appear, and pots of gold don't appear, then leprechauns don't exist. Or, leprechauns don't have the power to make pots of gold appear. Or, we just haven't found pots of gold that magically appear because we can't search the whole universe. So in that sense, yes, leprechauns are unfalsifiable. But so is God.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1A) We would then have to look at evidence and to logic to see how God and leprechauns hold up. With leprechauns, logically, they are created beings. Who created them? And who created the leprechaun creators? We run into the impossible/illogical problem of infinite regress of causes. What evidence do we have that they actually existed? I don't know of any. God is uncreated- it is a mystery but not illogical. We have evidence of God in the Bible.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2A) Archaeology and history verifies thousands of evidences, confirming the people, places, and events in the Bible. No shred of any evidence exists that disproves the slightest detail in the Bible. Thousands of eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus at the time copied transcripts several times and they spread to several, distant places.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
That's a lie. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's true. Prove that the Exodus happened. It says that there were 600,000 men (not including women and children) floating around the Sinai peninsula for 40 years. Notice that there is no evidence for this whole floating nation. Prove that Moses parted the Red Sea. Evolution disproves creation. The bible is full of errors.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) No offense, but you may think it is a lie but if I were to try and knowingly present a lie to you and call it truth, I would not be doing what is properly Christian. I cannot prove the Exodus account happened. If there is evidence, I do not know of any. There are countless examples where Biblical scholars scratched their heads over scripture that seemed to be incorrect, but through time, archaeology has found something that clears up the issue.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
I've read several modern books which time and again bring up the point that older (pre WWII) archaeologists' assumptions about the archeological truth of the Bible were false. These books are "Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology", "The Bible Unearthed", "The View from Nebo", "It Ain't Necessarily So", "The Mythic Past", and "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives"
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Thanks for the suggested reading.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
No problem.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
hey ForJesus220
i like how you talk in these videos. you really are a God´s mesenger
God Bless you !!
you just introduced some atheists to the holy spirit!!! hahahaha
pinguman13 4 years ago
2) Perhaps one day, evidence will be found. Some things are left to faith. We must remember with these questions you have here, there is no evidence that disproves these events but I recognize that is not evidence that it happened. I'd rather not discuss evolution, simply because I find it pointless in that there are too many variables to reach a proven conclusion. I do maintain though, that (macro)evolution is not proven.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
If you maintain that macroevolution is not proven, please see my video refutation of your video. See that talk.origins page I linked you to entitled "29+ evidences for macroevolution".
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
3) In spite of millions of generations we have observed, scientists cannot even get E.coli bacteria to become something else, given its 20 minute time to create a new generation. We cannot conclude that the Bible is full of errors if there is no evidence to prove or disprove a particular issue, we assume evolution is proven, and there are logical, archaeological, and historical explanations for the difficulties.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
*sigh* you really need to expand your knowledge of experiments on speciation (macroevolution) beyond the 1980s. Diane Dodd reproduced speciation in fruit flies within 8 generations. Again, see my video refutation of your video on evolution (previously I had said this was my latest video--it is not; it's actually my third latest, I think. Anyway, it's the one that has "forjesus220" in the title).
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Did the fruit flies become anything else other than a fruit fly? No. This is just an example of microevolution, not macro.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
What do you mean "become anything else"? They certainly became a separate species of fruit fly, if that's what you mean. The term "fruit fly" covers a broad range of animals. If you're looking for observed instances of different families, orders, classes, phyla, etc. evolving, I'm sorry. Nobody has seen that happen. However, there is evidence of it. I gave you a website that had about 30 evidences.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
According to 1 Chron 22:14, King David's army had around 1.5 million men. That's an idiotic exaggeration and there is no evidence to support it. The US Army had 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001, for reference.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
This verse says nothing about the size of King David's army.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Oh, sorry. 1 Chron 22:14 says that David gives Solomon 100,000 talents (about 3,000 tons) of gold and 1,000,000 of silver, which is another ridiculous exaggeration. The verse I meant to type in was 1 Chron 21:5, which says that David had 1.1 mil men from Israel and 470,000 from Judah. 2 Sam 24:9, on the other hand, says there were 800k from Israel and 500k from Judah. Just another contradiction for you.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1A) In 2 Sam, the number of men of valor who drew the sword was 800k but didn't include the standing army of 288k described in 1 Chron 27:1-15 or the 12k attached to Jerusalem shown in 2 Chron 1:14. Add these up and you get 1.1 mil. men. The 470k in 1 Chron 21 didn't include the 30k men of Judah mentioned in 2 Sam 6:1. If you look at 1 Chron 21:6, we clearly see that Joab had not completed the counting of the men of Judah.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
I don't understand how you make the assumption that 2 Sam doesn't include the 288k described in 1 Chron. 2 Sam says 800k and 500k; 1 Chron says 1.1m and 470k. In any case, there is no evidence that David's army was anywhere near so powerful. As I said before, the US Army had 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
2A) Both calculations prove correct according to which groups were included and excluded from each report. No contradiction.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
So what? Again, archeology verifies The Titanic and The Odyssey, too, but that doesn't mean that those stories are true. By the way, when was Jesus born? According to Luke 1:5, King Herod lived when Jesus was born, but according to Luke 2:1, Gov. Cyrinius took a census of "the world". Unfortunately, Herod died in 4 BC and Cyrinius took his post in the Empire in 6 AD according to all reliable historical sources.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1C) Notice that Luke 2:2 says, "This was the first census..." which implies a 2nd, etc. and refers back to verse 1 and does not imply that Cyrenius conducted the census. Encyc. Britannica states "Every 5 years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C." Luke is recognizing that the census decree stems from Augustus.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2C) Conducting a census was a big project, often taking years to conduct and complete. It is possible that Augustus entrusted Cyrenius to the census during the transition from Saturninus'administration to Varus'in 7 B.C. There was a Latin inscription discovered in 1764 that indicates that Cyrenius served as Syria's governor on at least 2 occasions.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3C) It is worth noting that Luke is a proven, reliable historian. Sir William Ramsey shows that as Luke refers to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, and had never made a mistake in his history.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3A) The eyewitnesses were available for years to be cross-examined but there is absolutely no evidence of anyone saying the events surrounding Jesus were false. You may say this is not evidence but in order for you to truly assert it not to be evidence, you would have to disprove all of it.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
So you're saying that unless we can disprove it, it must be true? That's a ridiculous argument from ignorance.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Oh really? According to the Bible, Jesus supposedly appeared to Paul. Before he appeared, Paul (aka Saul) was a Christian-hater and did his utmost to punish the Christians. Why can't Jesus appear to us then? I don't hate Christians but I don't believe AT ALL in the story of Jesus. Wasn't Paul's "free will" taken away? Paul saw Jesus crucified, and he saw Jesus walking around after his death. That's undeniable "proof" of Jesus' divinity. It would take away his free will.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) No one made Paul do anything. His eyes were simply opened to the truth. I think any person really would want to know the truth. Taking away Paul's free will would insinuate that Paul was forced to do something he didn't want to. Yet we see that Paul was passionate about His belief in God and wanted to spread Christianity. What would it take for a Christian-hater, seeking to put Christians to death to suddenly become the opposite? There is something to be said there.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) That is fine, I respect your decision not to believe in the account of Jesus. From your perspective, if Jesus really was real and the stories of Him in the Bible were accurate, wouldn't you want to know? Jesus will appear to us again.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
So what? There's no evidence of anyone saying that, for instance, Siddharta Gautama did not become enlightened and overcome the demon Mara. Buddha had disciples, too. I apologize profusely for using the argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance says that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or something is false because it hasn't been proven true. I may have said that the Gospels are false because they haven't been proven true. I caution you not to do the converse.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) No apology necessary. The difference with Christianity is that history verifies many events in the Bible. And the fact that the evidence made public at the time when the witnesses were around to be cross-examined was not accused to be false. I believe the Gospels to be true but agree they cannot be said to be proven true just because they haven't been proven false. If Christianity were proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'd abandon it.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) When you really study the history of what these people did for Jesus there really is no logical reason anyone would willingly die and sometimes along with their family for a cause that was false. Also, at the time, no one was going around saying the Jesus thing was a hoax or a lie.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3) It would be like if you stopped what you were doing today, completely changed everything you believe, including your lifestyle, went to faraway places you have never been before to spread a message to many people who will potentially imprison, torture, or kill you for what you have to say. Would you do that for a lie? Would several people get together and do it for a lie? Would you do it if you weren't absolutely sure?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
4) I'd say it would have to take some very significant event to make you get out of bed and do that.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
You assume that God exists and that God wants everything to be good. Those are two big presuppositions. Then you say that rejection of God is evidence of free will, even though the rejection of God goes against your first two assumptions. I could just as well say that "If there is a God, and God wants good, and people reject God, then that's evidence that there is no God, or at least not one who wants good".
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1I) Do you not see that you presuppose that God does not exist? Just because God desires something, doesn't necessarily mean He will cause it to happen. A parent wants their child to make good choices. But they (usually) don't attach strings to their arms and legs and make them do it. It is stronger testimony to our free choice.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2I) I respectfully would like to say the last sentence is not logical because "wanting" and the ability to take action does not necessitate action will be taken. I'd say this sentence is evidence that some people don't want/believe God under the assumption that God does exist.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) No offense, but it really doesn't make any sense to conclude Jesus is a normal guy because He didn't perform a miracle that proved to everyone for all time. Faith is needed and God wants to preserve your freedom to chose Him or reject Him.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Now the second problem is...who needs faith? If God really is benevolent, why can't He just save us all? For that matter, why take the round-about way of having someone be brutally executed as a vicarious punishment for someone else's sins? Why not just forgive everyone? The whole "faith" thing seems to be a rationalization for why Jesus can't prove himself. I have yet to see extra-biblical proof that Jesus performed miracles and claimed divine status.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1A) "why can't He just save us all?" I like that scenario. I wish that is what the Bible said and was God's plan. But God is also a God of justice and sin must be paid for. For God to ignore sin would contradict His nature. Jesus dying for our sins also represents God doing what we cannot do- live a perfect life without sin.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2A) It is like God saying, "You can't be perfect, so I'll show you perfection. I desire to be with you but I cannot live in the presence of sin. But, sin must be paid for so you can be justified and made righteous before Me. The problem is, you cannot do it because as you are now, you are still in sin and will continue to be in sin.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3A) Therefore, I will pay the penalty for you. All I ask is that you accept me as Lord and try to seek Me." "Why not just forgive everyone?" Because part of being forgiven is recognizing sin and seeking to turn away from it. Many people don't even realize they are even doing anything sinful. God knows you will still fail but you must keep trying. I don't know of any extra-biblical proof that Jesus performed miracles.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
4A) That requires faith and believing the eye witnesses- many of whom died horrible deaths along with their families because they witnessed something un-freaking-believable and couldn't help but spread the word.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Well then, why didn't Jesus prove his divinity to all future generations with 100% certainty? If he could, then we would all have to believe in him, and we would all be saved, according to Christianity. Jesus could, for instance, have left a large, burning cross in the sky hovering above New York City. Or he could just keep appearing to us. Why can't he prove himself with 100% certainty?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
He can prove Himself and He will eventually. Why not now, for all? Because then faith would not be required. Faith and love are closely related. You would no longer have the freedom to choose or reject God. Which of these is true love: A love for God that is basically forced upon you? Or a love that exists for God that is chosen? Also, if we demand God prove Himself according to whatever standard we demand, who is calling the shots now?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Wait a minute...so, you say that Jesus could not perform real miracles that last to the present day without needing "eyewitness" reports because that would take away "free will". If it was okay for Jesus to take away the "free will" of all the disciples and the people who saw him resurrected, why is it not okay for him to take away my "free will"?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) No, because I believe in those miracles. So apparently they have lasted for those who believe. Jesus did not take away the free will of the disciples. They were still free to believe in the miracles or to reject them. They were still free to look at resurrected Jesus and call Him an imposter or whatever. If there was a burning cross in the sky hovering above NYC would you believe in God or cite it a hoax?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
How did Jesus not take away the free will of the disciples? He raised a dead dude! That's unfakably authentic PROOF that he's God. Jesus could just keep appearing to us and perform miracles to prove it, now, couldn't he?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
But the disciples wanted to be with Jesus. They freely chose Him. It may be proof to those who witnessed it. What about the people who did not? He could keep appearing if He wanted to but that is not the plan. God has a plan according to His will and His ways and what we would often think is best, often is not.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) You are still free to decide. Miracles aren't meant to serve as proof but rather evidence that requires faith that God exists. Proof would be God revealing Himself.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
You're stuck in a strange cycle of circular reasoning...on the one hand, Jesus performs unverifiable miracles, "recorded" in the Bible, and these don't take away our free will, but once Jesus performs a real miracle that lasts till the present day, like moving a mountain or leaving a burning cross in the sky, that takes away our free will.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Lets suppose God placed a burning cross over NYC. In reality, Christians who know the Bible would know it is not of God because such an event is not spoken of there. For the sake of argument, God could do this but it does not take away anyone's free will. Some people will choose to believe it is of God and some would be free to say it was a cool laser light show.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Honestly, the crux of your argument is that God can't perform real, verifiable miracles like those aforementioned because doing so would make it so that God isn't "hidden". But God made himself a man (Jesus) and ran around performing miracles. That's no hidden God. Hundreds of people saw him resurrected. No non-divine being could resurrect himself. Why can't Jesus keep appearing to us?
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) God can but He requires faith. Proof (verified miracles) to everyone destroys faith. Faith deepens love because it is a trusting love for God that is freely chosen. On the other hand, God proving to everyone, "Hey, I exist!" forces everyone to acknowledge God exists. Then they are forced into accepting God or else they fear suffering consequences. That is right:
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) God in His almighty power humbled himself down to a man born as a baby, in a stable reeking of manure and urine, performed miracles, and ultimately died the most humiliating death on a cross. Why? To demonstrate the greatest act of love: To lay one's own life down for another and to pay for our sin- a punishment we deserve. When people say God is a God of love, they ignore He is a God of justice. God is the ultimate standard of goodness and righteousness.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
3) To commit sin is to offend God and His law. For God to ignore it is to contradict his nature of being a God of justice. We have to consider WHO we are offending with our sin. God is infinite. Therefore, to offend God, becomes an infinite offense. Infinite offense deserves infinite punishment- Hell. This is hardcore stuff, but it is reality. Yet Jesus paid the price for those who place their faith and trust in Him.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
4) We deserve the punishment but Jesus paid the price. Accepting Him makes one justified before God. Do you not see the incredible love God has for us and desires us to spend eternity with Him?
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Christianity asks you to look at the evidence? And yet Jesus says "happy are those that believe without seeing"....
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
1) It's amazing when people say it is a fact the Bible is not historically accurate and has been changed many times when this is absolutely not true. Then they pass judgment on it. The epitome of their Biblical ignorance is revealed when they misquote and misinterpret passages. You are referring to John 20:29.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
Why is there no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus' miracles? I'm sure there is *some* historical truth to the Bible...but then, there's some historical truth to the movie "Titanic" and "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey", but no one believes in Zeus, Aphrodite, Rose, and Jack. It's not that difficult for ancient people to write about some things that were real (i.e, kings, cities, kingdoms) and then make up some fictional events.
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
There was evidence: eye-witnesses. Eyewitnesses that could have been cross-examined long after the miracles. There is no contemporaneous evidence anywhere that asserts the miracles were false or that refuted the eyewitness testimonies. You have to understand that the culture of the people at that time. They were devoted to truth, examining evidence, and reporting things accurately. It would be up to you to prove those events were fictional.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
2) "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus is referring to future believers of Jesus because eventually Jesus, the disciples, witnesses will be gone, etc. It does not negate the Christian teaching that we should examine the evidence. Thanks for serving as an example that many people don't even care to investigate any further than the textual surface. It only reveals intellectual shallowness.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
I loved these, just wanted to let you know you did a really good job with these ForJesus220
NFLfeva 4 years ago
You fundies are all the same, using twisted logic to support a very old and flithy book. It's a true travesty to witness.
Ujikaweapon1 4 years ago
It's hard to believe that anyone believes in this shit anymore. America's education system is fucked. You fundies really need to get your heads out of your asses and get some education into you.
Bueller007 4 years ago
Er...disregarding your rather tasteful language..you have a good point. Christians parrot whatever their misguided religious leaders tell them. The questions aren't ignorant. They make perfect sense. The fact is that the Bible is not a reliable historical source--it's been changed, many times. The quotes aren't out of context. This video assumes that atheism "has a shallow view of the world"? *sigh*
BibleBreaker 4 years ago
Apparently, illogical propositions make sense to you.
ForJesus220 4 years ago
guy all stupid the church its satan things but they changeing good thing . you need to belive GOD see that goD in natural! Rocks waters ! and he is on the sky watching us ! thing about why mozes go to up the montain? he is see that GOD not the church! you need to love living creature and humans and natural thing they you see the goD!mentaly clear!
belagiorgo 4 years ago
A response to all the "bad" people of Chistianity, now I'm not too good with sarcasm, but are you saying that Hitler was a good person? Tip when using sarcasm, make sure it can't be turned around on you.