What is God starting point - Ravi Zacharias and Michael Ramsden - Who created God?

[HyperionZ619]

Universe has always been here. First law of thermodynamics, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This disproves ypur god theory for he could not have created the universe, since it's uncreatable. Energy in our universe is not infinite, add up every energy particle and it will be some number. Nothing can exist as an infinite. If god were real, he wouldn't be eternal, he too needs a beginning. The god theory is illogical.

[stephjh2006]

@HyperionZ619 Your comment is illogical :)

[Danzaiver01]

the funny thing is that religion is based in faith and nothing else. if there is a god i'm sure it has nothing to do with religions

[JeremiahPTTN]

Simple, only things that have a beginning require a cause. If something has always existed, then it neither has a cause, nor needs a cause. Only that which has a beginning, requires a cause to exist.

[Lightmane321]

Every cause has an effect. God is not an effect.

[polopowers1]

Serving the Lord? Or making a living? A hard way it certainly is when you don't know the difference.God is not infinite He is a self magnified Life, a self existing Life.Infinite means along the same line indefinitely. God is not along the same line.He is immutable in Virtue and Attribute but those virtues are magnified not changing but greater in proportion to themselves as God lives.He is love but greater love as He exists. The same pure love but greater by Nature of whom God is in living

[Hans021220]

God is from eternity!He has always been.

[college12003]

How is it that this reply cannot also be used for the universe....such that the universe needs no creator because it is infinite?

[HushAndLearn]

@college12003 >>How is it that this reply cannot also be used for the universe....such that the universe needs no creator because it is infinite?

--Because the universe is in decaying process

Regards...

[college12003]

@HushAndLearn Unless the universe decays to a point upon which it collapses into a singularity and creates another big bang, in a cyclical infinity of time.

[HushAndLearn]

@college12003 >>Unless the universe decays to a point upon which it collapses into a singularity and creates another big bang, in a cyclical infinity of time

--Scientists from LHC, clearly knows that the universe have only ONE beginning and that first beginning came from nothingness and you can check that out in Discovery Channel to see how foolish is that statement.

Take care...

[college12003]

@HushAndLearn Interesting...You claim that my statement is foolish yet friend request me...Seems odd. Anyway, I am well aware that the current hypothesis is that the universe came from nothing. I am also aware that they have yet to test this hypothesis and that science has been wrong in their assumptions in the past. The fact is that science knows nothing about what occurred before the big bang and that a cyclical universe is quite theoretically possible...

[IntrepidJss]

@college12003 There is no empirical evidence for an eternal oscillations of bangs and universes. It is just speculation. Secondly, every physical reality has to find a cause outside of itself, therefore, the starting point of a physical universe cannot be physical (since physical matter cannot exist before it exists). Therefore the First Cause has to be infinite, immaterial and eternal, which are the attributes of God.

[college12003]

@IntrepidJss Why must what you cannot understand be the God of your definition? As for your first statements.... Are you familiar with M theory?

[IntrepidJss]

@college12003 Again, this is not God of the gaps argument. It is not "I don't understand it, therefore God did it." Look at the premise again, "Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The Universe had a beginning, therefore, the Universe has a cause."

Yes, I am familiar with M-Theory. Even Steven Hawking says that physicists would rather use string theory than M-theory. And even the String theory or the M-theory has not explained a causeless or a self caused universe.

[college12003]

@IntrepidJss I don't doubt that the universe came from somewhere, but to assume that it came from the God, is just that, an assumption. It's not a horrible assumption, but it is hardly proof. String theory is a form of M-theory...and they explain the possibility of universes coming into existence through collisions of branes...Again, this is no proof, but it warrants consideration.

[gschofield1]

@college12003 there is an interesting documentry on the process of ever increasing entropy and the current scientific view on the way that the universe is heading (to a state of infinite entropy, the lowest possible energy state, such that no discernable processes will ever again occur and such time itself cannot even be measured) by Brian Cox: search for 'wonder's of the universe' episode 2 on Iplayer

Kind regards

[GaryLyons]

@HushAndLearn ....nothing can create itself, whatever exists in the universe, including the universe itself can only be explained in that something outside of itself and eternal and infinite, immaterial and all powerful must have created or it would not exist. Consider the Mona Lisa, its exiostence cannot be explained within itself, the only explanation for its existence is that someone outside of itself, intelligent, created it. God is the Alpha and the Omega.

[HushAndLearn]

@GaryLyons -I obviously agree! Regards.

[DandBMonk]

@HushAndLearn

I'd like to add the expansion of the universe as well. It has expanded, and is in decline. There would be no cyclical times in an infinity...you would never progress, thus it would never permit a big bang...only nothing. A big nor even a little bang would ever occur, and neither would this conversation. =)

[BassP86]

@college12003

An infinite universe postulation commits the fallacy of infinite regress, which is where the same type of occurrence (naturalistic) happens constantly.

An infinite intelligent being postulation does not commit the fallacy of infinite regress because first there was the supernatural, then the natural.

It's the exact opposite when you compare them in terms of being finite.

Finite universe + infinite God = No infinite regress

[college12003]

@BassP86 The supernatural as not committing this fallacy would only be true if God and the supernatural operate outside of basic reason and/or outside of time.

[DandBMonk]

@college12003

I'm not tryna be a combatant, but...the only way you can have a noncausality is without time. If you know anything about quantum physics and string theories...time is present in these equations. If you can measure time, then there is no infinity to regress backwards or forwards in. Only something outside of time could explain it's own cause of noncausality where time would never progress, nor regress...the only thing conceivable, IMO is God. Could be wrong, that's why I said IMO

[lupocephalic]

What a crock of shit.

[Fr3derick]

Great video!!!

Grandma Mary

[naujphantom]

There is a problem with this, I agree that God must be perfect or else everything is damned to destruction.

But if God created everything then the cause for him to create can't be outside him.

If he is perfect that means that he doesn't change and then the cause can't be in him neither.

If the cause is in him, what caused the cause?

The only solution that I can think is that there is something else besides God that is eternal but not perfect.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>If the cause is in him, what caused the cause?

--God is what define the cause before the creation within the Trinity concept itself because God spoke and loved before the creation. God is love and love is the cause. Love builds and preserve, hate just kills and destroy.

Take care...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn I agree on many things but if we have a starting point that means that God decided to create everything at that point, why not before?

Something must have caused him to create at that specific point.

If nothing else existed it means that something must have changed in him and that is not possible since he is perfect.

If you said that God is constantly creating then we don't have a starting point.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn What about this concept: God, matter, time and beings/souls have always existed.

Everything which is not perfect degrades. If time has always existed then everything should have been degraded unless we have a perfect God to maintain and to guide everything and to create everything which is good.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>God, matter, time and beings/souls have always existed

--Existed from who if is not from God? You can't posit out of the nothingness, so obviously God must always existed for you to even start talking about something out of someone.

Your example of degrading time is more like degrading matter because time is just a measure of change withing a decaying element. And if everything is decaying is because the fall of Adam and Eve (sin).

Regards...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Existed from who if is not from God?"

I don't think it is a valid question since I am saying that those things have always existed as God has always existed.

"Your example of degrading time is more like degrading matter"

Yes, I didn't said time, I said everything which is not perfect.

"And if everything is decaying is because the fall of Adam and Eve (sin)"

That is only in this world and only applies to life.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom -You can't posit matter as equal as spirit because matter decays and the spirit doesn't. You're getting into a position of an unreasonable invention with not historical support whatsoever. God Himself is one several concepts within Himself (Trinity).

Time doesn't always existed because matter didn't always existed since matter is a decaying process, therefore matter & spirit has nothing to do in common, but is not because God is not perfect but rather the result of sin.

Take care.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Time doesn't always existed because matter didn't always existed since matter is a decaying process"

Matter decays yes but that doesn't mean that it will cease to exist it get dissolved and disorganized but it is still there and God organizes it.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Matter decays yes but that doesn't mean that it will cease to exist it get dissolved and disorganized but it is still there and God organizes it.

--Yea, God can organize. And God said, and it was [Genesis 1:1] In the beginning (time) God create the heavens (space) and the earth (matter); time, space and matter as the bible describes had a beginning.

Watch this video at 3:03 and pay clear attention to that point forward.

Regards...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "[Genesis 1:1] In the beginning (time) God create the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)"

But that is an interpretation, here is another:

In the beginning (of the world) God create the heavens (the heavens) and the earth (the earth).

"Watch this video at 3:03"

Yes, I know, an infinite existence is inexplicable but an absolute beginning is also inexplicable. To create is an action, actions occur in time but if there is no time how can God create.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>actions occur in time but if there is no time how can God create

--Because God is not affected by time (it is not 2010 in heave). There is not an specific time lap that He needs to start and finish a creation if is not with a meaning to it. Eternal entities are not affected by time.

There are several concepts of time (that it obviously won't fit inhere), that if you go and read it, you'll see God is not affected by no one of them, as you imply in your question.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "There is not an specific time lap that He needs to start and finish a creation"

See, you are implying two different moments, start and finish, an action implies the existence of time, you can argue that somehow it doesn't but I can argue too that somehow time can have always existed.

"Eternal entities are not affected by time."

I can agree that they are above time but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>See, you are implying two different moments, start and finish, an action implies the existence of time

--Yea, the action of 6 days creation in earth time and 1 for rest. But not because He need 7 days but because of the purpose to define the week.

>>I can agree that they are above time but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.

--To imply time you need to start with a digit, if that's your case when then that digit cero beguine?

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "But not because He need 7 days but because of the purpose to define the week."

I'am not saying that He needs 7 days but that to start or to create require the existence of time.

"To imply time you need to start with a digit, if that's your case when then that digit cero beguine?"

Numbers measure time but aren't time, and there are negative numbers. Besides I already granted that an infinite time is inexplicable but I think that there are more problems with an absolute beginning.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>but that to start or to create require the existence of time

--How do you measure time? With what?

>>Numbers measure time but aren't time, and there are negative numbers.

--Then explain negative matter?

>>but I think that there are more problems with an absolute beginning.

So you mean that because you can't understand something means it can not exist? Something like, I am not an absolute, therefore it can't be absolutes?

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "How do you measure time? With what?"

With numbers, but it doesn't follow that time can't be infinite, it depends from where you start counting and in which direction, you can start counting backward from this moment starting from zero.

"So you mean that because you can't understand something means it can not exist?"

Of-course not, I can't understand time always existing but I am not the one saying that it has a beginning.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>With numbers, but it doesn't follow that time can't be infinite

--Because it had a beginning.

>>it depends from where you start counting and in which direction

--Then what is you reference to start counting and to put that zero in it?

>>I can't understand time always existing but I am not the one saying that it has a beginning

--Because time is a reference of something starting from somewhere, therefore time can't be eternal because there is not reference to start counting.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Then what is you reference to start counting and to put that zero in it?"

--Depends on what you want to measure, if you want to measure the time that has passed you count backwards from the present. But I see your point, point that I already granted.

"therefore time can't be eternal"

--I agree that it "seems" that time can't be eternal but it also "seems" that it can't have an absolute beginning.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I agree that it "seems" that time can't be eternal but it also "seems" that it can't have an absolute beginning.

--If there is not an absolute been, then nothing else can exist. When something exist you can't say or posit nothingness because nothingness just do and create nothing; therefore someone must be the one create that. And that fist cause must be an absolute, is the beginning of everything, that without Him there is nothing, and with His there is everything.

Regards.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "because nothingness just do and create nothing"

Let me put it this way: A sculptor create sculptures, but he doesn't create the stones in which the sculptures are made.

"And that fist cause must be an absolute, is the beginning of everything"

I'm not saying that it can't be that way but that there are problems as with an infinite time. As I said, is unthinkable that something can occur if there is no time for it to occur, as an infinite time is unthinkable also.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Let me put it this way: A sculptor create sculptures, but he doesn't create the stones in which the sculptures are made

--Then where are you sculpting your sculptures? The bible state that God create the universe out of nothing, but only an intelligent been can create something out of nothing.

>>And that fist cause must be an absolute, is the beginning of everythin

--He is the beginning of the universe, which is everything in our perspective.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Then where are you sculpting your sculptures? "

--I don't understand your question. I could be anywhere, the point is that to create doesn't necessary means to create also the sustain with which you create.

"The bible state that God create the universe out of nothing"

--Where does it say so? I have read that the bible doesn't say "out of nothing"

Google for: ex_nihilo wiki

And read the first result if you want.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I could be anywhere, the point is that to create doesn't necessary means to create also the sustain with which you create.

--No because you are already implying a creation, which is the stone.

>>Where does it say so? I have read that the bible doesn't say "out of nothing"

--I am obviously speaking from a human perspective.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "No because you are already implying a creation, which is the stone."

--And why God does not imply a creation, you may say that God is not contingent, I agree and I propose that matter, time and space aren't contingent neither.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I agree and I propose that matter, time and space aren't contingent neither.

Matter, space and time has no intelligence whatsoever to do nor create ANYTHING for itself if is not an intelligent Been that input the information.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Matter, space and time has no intelligence whatsoever to do nor create ANYTHING for itself if is not an intelligent Been that input the information."

--I agree, an intelligence is necessary too.

[polopowers1]

@HushAndLearn Spirit does not live by code but freedom, if you don't know what that is your a good person who lives by standards.You mention gross sins but not pride. Sin brakes the moral code of law.But Christ Spirit sets me free from standards. Handwritten ordinances were nailed to the cross. You want freedom? Stop trying to be good and live exclusively by Spirit.The old man broke the moral code. The new man is to live free in Spirit not by morality but freedom of Virtue only Spirit can give

[HushAndLearn]

@polopowers1 >>Stop trying to be good and live exclusively by Spirit.

--And what is what the spirit tells you to do? If you don't know look at Jesus as a Mentor.

Again, you can't talk about virtues WITHOUT morals. They are in conjunction.

[polopowers1]

@HushAndLearn Good blessing Hush and Learn.So many believers are trying to live the good life, not the free life. They want to do something of works or standards to be better.But Christ paid the price for all my sin, past,present, and future.I'm free to live holy in Spirit. I'm not fighting to be holy, I am holy.Only devotion can give true victory.If you keep moral law you are working to please God.If your free by Christ death your living in Spirit His Virtues much more holy than morality.!

[HushAndLearn]

@polopowers1 >>So many believers are trying to live the good life, not the free life

--Yes, free life from evil deeds. Tell me what's good about and worth is to live an evil life? If is not, then stop doing evil deeds and follow Jesus.

>>But Christ paid the price for all my sin

--Yes, because we ALL are, but that doesn't mean not to repent

>>If you keep moral law you are working to please God

--You are confusing moral law with grace and repentance.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>As I said, is unthinkable that something can occur if there is no time for it to occur

--Again, time is a measure starting from something, you haven't answer the reference point of that beginning of the time to start counting.

Take care...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Again, time is a measure starting from something"

--It seems that we disagree, you can measure time but time is not a measure. Anyway I agree, time is moving forward, if time has no begging it means that an infinite amount of time has passed which seems impossible. But as I said the other only alternative also seems impossible.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>It seems that we disagree, you can measure time but time is not a measure

--I am not using a tool to measure time, but you are using time to measure what? And what kind of time's system you are using to measure what? Earth hours or Saturn hours? Time can't exist in eternity, that's whole point.

Take care.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "but you are using time to measure what? "

--I'm not measuring anything, only answering your questions. I really don't get your point. I can use time to measure how much it take to cook a cake... lets use minutes.

"Time can't exist in eternity"

--I already granted that point, but the other option also seems impossible.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I'm not measuring anything, only answering your questions

--You aren't answering the question because you never answer what is that your reference of measure!

>>I already granted that point, but the other option also seems impossible

--What other option, God? Nothing just create nothing, so therefore someone must be exist the entire time to create the first cause (God).

Take care.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "You aren't answering the question because you never answer what is that your reference of measure!"

--I already answered, lets take the present time as a reference.

"What other option, God? Nothing just create nothing"

--Exactly: out of nothing, nothing comes, so how can it be possible to create out of nothing?

The other option is an absolute beginning. Or there was an absolute beginning or an infinite succession of events (infinite time), both seems impossible.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>lets take the present time as a reference

--Ok, but then that is an earth time measure for earth time stuff for our perspective.

>>Exactly: out of nothing, nothing comes, so how can it be possible to create out of nothing?

--For God there is nothing impossible, God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient

>>Or there was an absolute beginning or an infinite succession of events (infinite time), both seems impossible

--Then define the event you're measuring from that far back.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Ok, but then that is an earth time measure for earth time stuff for our perspective."

--Yes.

"For God there is nothing impossible, God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient"

--Omnipotent doesn't mean to be able to do that which is impossible. It means to be able to do all that it is possible or else we would have a logical contradiction.

"Then define the event you're measuring from that far back."

--There wasn't such event or else we would have an absolute beginning.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Omnipotent doesn't mean to be able to do that which is impossible

--Impossible like what? I seems you are implying you are a god o.0

>>There wasn't such event or else we would have an absolute beginning

--Therefore time is not eternal because it was no event to measure. Which mean an absolute Been (God)

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Impossible like what?"

--For example: making a rock that He can't lift. I don't know if you know William Lane Craig but one of his arguments against the argument of evil is that it is impossible to make a world with freewill and no evil.

"I seems you are implying you are a god"

--I really don't know how I am implying that...

"Therefore time is not eternal because it was no event to measure."

--If you can't measure it then it is reasonable to say it is infinite.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>If you can't measure it then it is reasonable to say it is infinite.

--But not eternal.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn Oh, sorry, I must add:

"matter decays and the spirit doesn't"

The spirit does not decay? I agree in that it doesn't die but it does decay. How you explain sin then?

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>The spirit does not decay? I agree in that it doesn't die but it does decay. How you explain sin then?

--Sin has nothing to do with spirit decay nor is not an explanation of any spirit decay, is just a result of freewill. God can destroy the spirit in hell as [Matthew 10:28] describe, but that is a result of free will consequences of our choice.

Spirit decay? Where did you get that from?

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Sin has nothing to do with spirit decay"

Maybe we have different understanding of the word "decay", my english is not very good so maybe its me who is wrong.

Don't you agree that the spirit sins and that it can sin more or less? If a spirit that doesn't sin much begins to sin more, wouldn't you say that it gets worse that it is decaying?

I'm using decay to say that something gets worse, maybe it is the wrong word.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Don't you agree that the spirit sins and that it can sin more or less?

--I think you are confusing decaying with freewill, those are two different concepts. There is not such thing as "in between" between love and hate after death. In other words, there is not such thing as getting worse spirituality. Or you become perfect after death (heaven) or you don't (hell) that's it.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "you are confusing decaying with freewill"

I checked the dictionary, decay is ok.

"There is not such thing as in between"

So you don't thing that some are better than others and some worst? Didn't Lucifer fell? What about mathew 11:11?

I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I checked the dictionary, decay is ok

--The word decay is not the issue here, you implication to the spirit decay is the issue

>>So you don't thing that some are better than others and some worst? Didn't Lucifer fell?

--If you read my comment you'll see I am speaking after death, not in the present. There is not in between life and death in the final destination. Your implication of the bible has nothing to do with my comment. Lucifer also have freewill & u see where he is now

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "If you read my comment you'll see I am speaking after death, not in the present."

Then you agree about the present? A spirit can decay/get worse before death?

Then in heaven and in hell there is no freewill, right?

But if sin requires freewill and there is no freewill in hell and Lucifer is in hell, then Lucifer can't sin.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Then you agree about the present? A spirit can decay/get worse before death?

--No,the spirit doesn't decay nor get worst.Spirits are different than matter

>>Then in heaven and in hell there is no freewill?

--If there is not freewill,there is not love. God is a God of love. In heaven there is no evil

>>But if sin requires freewill and there is no freewill in hell and Lucifer is in hell, then Lucifer can't sin.

--Lucifer is in hell because he already sin. Hell is a consequence

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "No,the spirit doesn't decay nor get worst.Spirits are different than matter"

Maybe we are talking about different things, If with spirit you mean that which can't be divided or destroyed then I agree it can't decay but that's not what I meant. Maybe soul is the word, I mean that which is not the flesh but drives the flesh, it has personality and learns, it is not freewill, it has freewill.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >> it has personality and learns, it is not freewill, it has freewill.

--Ok, you are trying to grasp something no one know but that which we will after death when we stay with God (but until then), because there is not point to get too much technical into something we can't grasp as we can't grasp more dimension as only 3 we know.

But you need to know that our actions comes from our own decisions and not from anyone else.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn With that I agree, regards.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "If there is not freewill,there is not love. God is a God of love. In heaven there is no evil"

Then is there freewill in heaven and in hell or not?

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Then is there freewill in heaven and in hell or not?

--Yes, but you need to understand that hell is a consequence of your own free decisions.

Take care...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn And which you think is the purpose of hell?

If God is good and God sends to hell, shouldn't the purpose be good too?

Couldn't the soul be sent to hell for its own sake?

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>If God is good and God sends to hell, shouldn't the purpose be good too?

--God is good but it doesn't mean He can not be righteous, so instead of this been a contradiction in reality it is a complementation. So that is where freewill come to your own decisions.

>>Couldn't the soul be sent to hell for its own sake?

--Let put it this way, all you see in this life (trees, oxygen, life, water, etc.) comes from God, if you stay away from God then you rejecting yourself life.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "God is good but it doesn't mean He can not be righteous"

--But what does it mean to be righteous? An eye by an eye? If it is good to be righteous then the consequence of a righteous action must be good.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>But what does it mean to be righteous?

--Those who doesn't repent from sin (evil deeds) and trust in Jesus Christ. Those who doesn't come to life and rejects the only life source. If people reject Him, then God must be righteous and reject them as well.

Regards.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "If people reject Him, then God must be righteous and reject them as well."

But it is written: If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I agree that it is no good to reject God but if it is bad how could God contribute to this by rejecting them?

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>But it is written: If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

--Yes, all I would do at the most is just walk away.

>>but if it is bad how could God contribute to this by rejecting them?

--Because for God to reject you, is because you must reject Him first. Pretty much respecting your decision for not want to be with Him.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Pretty much respecting your decision for not want to be with Him."

But to respect your decision does not imply to reject you also, He could say ok, go away if you want to, I will be here for you if you change your mind.

But ok, you see punishment as a vendetta, I see punishment as a medicine.

Take care.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>But to respect your decision does not imply to reject you also, He could say ok, go away if you want to, I will be here for you if you change your mind.

--That's exactly in the position that you are right now while you still alive! Right now you have the grace of God before death, after death you have justice. So be aware of that.

>>But ok, you see punishment as a vendetta, I see punishment as a medicine

--How can a medicine be a punishment?

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "How can a medicine be a punishment?"

--Medicines sometimes are awful but they heal the body, If the punishment, even being painful, heals the soul, it is like a medicine to the soul.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>If the punishment, even being painful, heals the soul, it is like a medicine to the soul

--A soul punish is not eternal Heaven, is eternal hell. It may call it medicine when you get to Heave, but not in hell (if that's how you want to put it).

Regards...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "A soul punish is not eternal Heaven, is eternal hell. It may call it medicine when you get to Heave"

--I am not saying medicine as consolation or something that eases the pain but as a very painful treatment to cure the soul.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I am not saying medicine as consolation or something that eases the pain but as a very painful treatment to cure the soul

--Forget about the medicine then. Go back to Heaven and hell.

Regards...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Forget about the medicine then. Go back to Heaven and hell."

--But I am suggesting that hell is like a medicine or a painful treatment.

Take care.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>But I am suggesting that hell is like a medicine or a painful treatment

--No, hell is not a medicine, is an eternal punishment and an eternal separation from life (God)

>>making a rock that He can't lift

--You can't put words above the purpose. First of all, why He would create a rock that He can't lift? If there is not purpose, there is not reason

>>it is impossible to make a world with freewill and no evil

--That's why there is evil because of freewill.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "No, hell is not a medicine, is an eternal punishment and an eternal separation from life (God)"

--Ok then, we have different concept of hell, to me, whatever hell is, it must have a good purpose.

"You can't put words above the purpose. First of all, why He would create a rock that He can't lift?"

--The question is not if he would chose it but if he can do it.

"That's why there is evil because of freewill"

--Because it isn't possible to have freewill and no evil.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Ok then, we have different concept of hell, to me, whatever hell is, it must have a good purpose

--Is not a purpose is a consequence. Show any scriptures to support your claim.

>>The question is not if he would chose it but if he can do it

--Is like saying God should be able to destroy Himself. First of all there is NOT reason to do such things...neither to create a rock. God is not a useless senseless God as you are trying to imply.

No reason, no purpose...useless question.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Is not a purpose is a consequence."

--Then it isn't God who sends people to hell? I know that many people thinks this way.

"Show any scriptures to support your claim."

--Show any that contradict my claim. I am not saying that this is necessary true but if God is who sends people to hell then it must be for the better since God is good.

"there is NOT reason to do such things"

--Even if there is no reason and he would never do it, the question is if he is able or not.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Then it isn't God who sends people to hell?

--People go to hell by their own rejection to the only life source

>>Show any that contradict my claim

--One of many [Matt. 25:46]

>>since God is good

God is good but also righteous, which beyond to be a contradiction, is a complementation.

>>the question is if he is able or not

U r positioning a question with a false assumption, you can't put actions before intentions.You MUST start with intentions and then actions.

Take care.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "One of many [Matt. 25:46]"

I actually searched google for: Matt. 25:46

... and the second result contradict your position, The title of the page is: "Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language

"You MUST start with intentions and then actions."

I can't see your point the question is simple, Is he able or not? ...but let me put it this way then, Is he able to create a world with freewill and no evil?

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >> (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language

--I guess none of the Bible translations knows how to speak Greek now? Well then read Jude 1:5-6, 2 thess. 1:9, Mathew 25:41, Revelation 20:12-15, Psalm 9:17,Mathew 5:22-29, Mathew 10:28, etc.

>>Is he able to create a world with freewill and no evil?

--Yes,that's how it was before sin, freewill and no evil. After sin, it came the inherit knowledge of evil. God promise to restore it, but first repent from sin to be with Him then

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Well then read Jude 1:5-6, 2 thess. 1:9..."

--I did read all those passages and it doesn't say anywhere everlasting torment or anything like that it does say everlasting fire or destruction, thats different. I can destry forever a statue but the clay is still there, I can make another.

Anyway thanks for taking the time to look all the passages.

"Yes,that's how it was before sin, freewill and no evil. "

--Then the snake wasn't evil?

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>it doesn't say anywhere everlasting torment or anything like,it does say everlasting fire or destruction,thats different

--If fire & destruction is not enough torment for u, then I don't know what else for u can be

>>Then the snake wasn't evil?

--In Genesis 3 says that the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made, but it doesn't say it is evil. But God curse the snake after that, more than all cattle & more than every beast of the field

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "If fire & destruction is not enough torment"

--Destruction is different from torment, the fire can be an analogy for destruction but even if it is not, if the fire is an analogy for torment, everlasting fire does not imply everlasting torment.

"but it doesn't say it is evil"

--Does not say that it lies to Eve and that it tells her to disobey God? Isn't that evil?

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Destruction is different from torment

--Is not any different in hell, because your body is never consumed as worms are not [Mark 9:48].

>>Does not say that it lies to Eve and that it tells her to disobey God? Isn't that evil?

--After lying, not before. That's why we all are condemned (including the serpent).

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Is not any different in hell, because your body is never consumed as worms are not [Mark 9:48]"

--This passage is different, it doesn't speak of "eternal" torment, it says that it is never consumed not that it will stay there for ever.

"After lying, not before. That's why we all are condemned"

--Then the snake wasn't against God before lying? Its was a good serpent and for no reason something went bad in its head? Shouldn't there be a cause?

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>This passage is different, it doesn't speak of "eternal" torment

--Of course Nauj, it doesn't doesn't speak of eternal there...u need to use all passages in conjunction with the rest. My point there is that they never consumed.

>>Shouldn't there be a cause?

--If you consider the serpent to be evil, then also the tree. Keep in mind that God test our faith [Exodus 15:25], [Genesis 22:1], [Exodus 20:20], etc. Even Jesus was tempted [Matthew 4:1-11].

Regards...

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "u need to use all passages in conjunction with the rest."

--Ok then, but to me, it makes more sense to understand everlasting destruction if it says so and torment/punishment not eternal if it doesn't say eternal.

"If you consider the serpent to be evil, then also the tree."

--I don't see why the tree would be evil.

"Keep in mind that God test our faith"

--We still have the problem of the evil snake since it seems clear to me that its intentions weren't good.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>It makes more sense to understand everlasting destruction

--Let me put this way, everlasting mean it never end. Doesn't matter if its destruction or torment, it just never going to end and u ain't going to like it.

>>We still have the problem of the evil snake since it seems clear to me that its intentions weren't good

--U can't have evil snake for something the snake haven't done yet. If ur question is what cause the snake to do that? the answer is freewill.

Take care.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "U can't have evil snake for something the snake haven't done yet."

--You can't blame/punish the snake for something that it haven't done... that doesn't mean that it wasn't evil before.

"If ur question is what cause the snake to do that? the answer is freewill."

--But not all beings with freewill sin, something must be different in those who sin, freewill can't be the cause then. Freewill is necessary for sin but not sufficient.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>You can't blame/punish the snake for something that it haven't done

--That's why God punish it afterward, not before.

>>that doesn't mean that it wasn't evil before

--Then how can u blame something from evil if it hasn't commit any yet?

>>But not all beings with freewill sin

--Angels already have knowledge from good and evil and those who sin go to hell

>> freewill can't be the cause then

--It is when you have the knowledge of what is wrong and you still do it

Take care.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Then how can u blame something from evil if it hasn't commit any yet"

--As I said, you blame it after, but then you realize that it was evil from before. A rapist is evil before his first rape, when he plots and fills his mind with vile actions.

"Angels already have knowledge from good and evil and those who sin go to hell"

--But not all sin, my point remains. Freewill is necessary for sin but not sufficient.

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>A rapist is evil before his first rape, when he plots and fills his mind with vile actions

--Angels in Heaven have knowledge of evil and they can't be evil Angels because they haven't commit any. You can't condemn a rapist because they have a dream about, but when they commit it, then

>>But not all sin

--That's my point, Angels can't go to hell for knowledge reasons.

>>Freewill is necessary for sin but not sufficient

--You can't blame God, therefore is freewill

Kind regards

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn > "You can't condemn a rapist because they have a dream about"

--I didn't say that I said that it is evil before he sin even if we can't realize it until then.

Lets remember the point: that somethings are impossible to God, I said:

--"Is he able to create a world with freewill and no evil?"

You said:

--Yes,that's how it was before sin.

Then let me put it this way then:

"Is he able to create a world with freewill in where evil is not possible?

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>that somethings are impossible to God

--Not for the God of the Bible, read [Rev. 19:6], [Job 42:2], [Matt. 19:26], [Luke 1:37], [Eph. 1:19], [Eph. 3:20], etc

>>Is he able to create a world with freewill in where evil is not possible?

--God can do anything He wants. Rejection is always a willing possibility, otherwise there is not freewill.Whatever goes against the only source of life is evil which God leaves that window open, otherwise God is not love by forcing someone 2 stay

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Because it isn't possible to have freewill and no evil

--Because it is possible to have freewill and there is evil.

[polopowers1]

@HushAndLearn .All perversions break the moral code,the law.But what the law could not do being weak God did sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh.Morals as an absolute is not whom God is in Character.According to your definition God is making us better moral people,that is garbage.I'm a new creation in Christ.What your missing I don't know .If you think your a christian because you don't do those perverted sins you mentioned,think again. con't

[HushAndLearn]

@polopowers1 >>In ANY moment I amply that God is making us better people. What I am saying is that God COMPEL US to repent from sin, therefore stop sinning.

Did you read the bible and remember what Jesus told the prostitute? I don't condemn you but STOP SINNING! When Jesus cures the born blind He told him now that you see do not sin, same thing with people that Jesus cures told them to stop sinning or worst thing will happen.

So, where is the garbage here?

[polopowers1]

@HushAndLearn Christ is not a minister of sin Gal 2:16,17 If your relationship is fighting with sin and repenting all the time your not enjoying Christ.I don't focus on not sinning I focus on my affection to Christ.Self righteousness is merit of always fighting with sin like there is some merit in doing so.The two people you mentioned were not born again still under law Christ had not yet died or given His Spirit.Christ is not a minister of sin for those set free He is a minister of devotion.

[HushAndLearn]

@polopowers1 >> Gal 2:16,17

--Before you even talk about [Gal 2:16,17] you first need to describe faith, and for that read [James 2:18-26]

>>Self righteousness is merit of always fighting with sin

--You don't fight something you dislike

>>still under law Christ had not yet died or given His Spirit

--Wrong [James 2:18-26] & many other similar passages were after Jesus departure. If u love your wife u don't cheat even if u wish, but ur love towards her make u not to do it, same towards Jesus

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "God can destroy the spirit in hell"

Yes, but what does it mean to destroy? I can destroy a chair and still everything that was part of the chair will still exist. To destroy means to divide. In Plato's Gorgias there is a part where it says something about hell, it says that hell is this state of complete division (destruction).

Regards.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>Yes, but what does it mean to destroy?

--Whatever is separated from life, where there is not God's grace. God is everything you see in life and without them there is not love but wrath. Destroy the spirit doesn't imply a material destruction but in spirit is a separated concept of matter and meaning.

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "Destroy the spirit doesn't imply a material destruction but in spirit is a separated concept of matter and meaning."

It could be but what are the arguments? I mean: ho did you come to that conclusion? Are you saying that the spirit ceases to exist? I disagree.

[HushAndLearn]

@naujphantom >>I mean: ho did you come to that conclusion?

--Before you get into a conclusion, you need to understand the entire scripture and not just parts of it. Some answers you don't find them in the same Gospel, letters, etc. but throughout the entire lecture and understanding of it, keeping the logic, coherency and common sense of the attitude of a moral perfect loving God.

I am not saying that spirits ceases to exist, but people feel in hell & the bible calls them spiritual death

[naujphantom]

@HushAndLearn "I am not saying that spirits ceases to exist, but people feel in hell & the bible calls them spiritual death"

Then we are agree or at least we don't disagree on this point.

Regards.

[BlankPicketSign]

Testing to see if Stupid little Christians so cowardly as to Censored their comments

If the are not that cowardly...

Inb4 "your going to hell"

=^_^=

[Sasquatch7foot]

God has been and will always be........Forever The Alpha and the Omega

[AlgisKemezys]

Jesus is one of the roads

[HushAndLearn]

@AlgisKemezys -It is actually the only road.

[StopSpamming1]

Everything needs a cause - except god. How convenient. No wonder these people think they win every discussion: bend the rules.

[JasonQuahWL]

@StopSpamming1To recognize an explanation as the best you don't need an explanation of an explanation. If you bring in the problem of what made God your left with an infinite regress. At some point your going to have to hit an end point of an uncaused cause. That's why these people DO WIN every discussion.

[StopSpamming1]

@JasonQuahWL

Right. But then what is to stop anyone from assuming that NOT everything requires a cause, as would be the case for a god. We have one example and there are others. So after a while we have a multitude of examples that do not require a cause. And then it's easy to see that the most unlikely, the uncaused god, starts fading away.

[JasonQuahWL]

@StopSpamming1 What the what? What doesn't have a cause? The only things that don't are abstract things like logic and numbers, etc. but they don't cause anything. e.g. The number 7 in itself doesn't cause anything. The only reason why the uncaused god starts to fade is because atheist's can't deny the point so lo and behold. They IGNORE IT.

[StopSpamming1]

@JasonQuahWL

Uncaused? Gas molecules, radioactive decay, the Universe, etc etc etc. And what you call a god. And if you accept a god to be uncaused, why not the Big Bang?

[Atheists can't deny the point] - What point?

[HushAndLearn]

@StopSpamming1 >> And if you accept a god to be uncaused, why not the Big Bang?

--Because the universe contains matter and matter tends to decay and disorder. That's why even scientist create the useless LHC because they themselves believe the big bang came out of nothing & you can see it in "discovery channel" which is crazy since these people don't understand what nothing is.

[StopSpamming1]

@HushAndLearn

I think we should leave it here. You don't have even a basic understanding of the words you are using.

[bcosby5252]

@HushAndLearn: I like how you're using laws of thermodynamics when you believe in a sky-wizard who can create matter out of thin air. How ironic.

FYI, there is no consensus in scientific community regardless the origin and causation of the Big Bang. Whichever religious propaganda taught you that, is lying, surprise!

Oh, and particle accelerators are not entirely "useless". They have very good uses to them, though I doubt somebody as deluded as you will ever understand it. I feel sorry for you.

[JasonQuahWL]

@StopSpamming1 The cause of gas molecules IS the Big Bang. The cause of anything known to us is the Big Bang. Radioactive decay is a process Genius. There's obviously a cause you fool. And to say the Universe is uncaused and eternal is one of the most heavily renounced scientific theories. My mistake atheist's don't deny the points. You don't even know them.

[StopSpamming1]

@JasonQuahWL

Physicist Michio Kaku: "Gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving."

Not quite a Big Bang.

Radioactive decay is an event, not a process.

You need to make up your mind: genius or fool?

The uncaused Universe is a hypothesis or model, not a theory. The same goes for the Big Bang. But then, you knew this, right?

[AlienshateU]

@StopSpamming1

kaku is a fool.

[jarbon5]

Love how Ravi rakes the time to break down the ABC's of his explanation so that it can be understood. Love that:)

[rsaran1288]

Great explanation on how an infinite being, by definition, does not need a cause. I love Ravi and Michael and pray they continue to be used by God to reach the masses for Christ!

[TommyRushing]

This is one of the most detailed explanations I've heard Ravi and Michael give on the subject glad to see it on Youtube.

[polopowers1]

God is self existing Life,perpetuated by Spirit Virtue.He cannot exist outside of His being Holy,Love Truth,etc. God is by definition not a necessity in order to be. Perpetual Life meaning forever magnified.God is not infinite that is continually the same.But God is the same perpetual Virtue never changing from original Virtue but never the same love or truth or as holy as He was a moment before.

[Canlander7]

That is so true. When Ravi explains the problem of cause-and-effect. I thought about that when I was a teenager and thinking about finiteness and what God was.

Thanks for the video!

God Bless

[Canlander7]

That is so true. When Ravi explains the problem of cause-and-effect. I thought about that when I was a teenager and thinking about what God was.

Thanks for the video!

God Bless

[polopowers1]

Self existing Life is not communicable.Except in terms of not being able to be suspended.God is Virtue and Attribute and Spirit.Which came first Virtue or substance of Spirit? Neither, both exist simultaneously.Therefore God is God by Virtue of who He is,and cannot be suspended or His Life would cease to exist.Hence it is impossible to have free will which would nullify God's existence in perpetual Life.

[thefluffy7]

great vid

[Nephtali1981]

GOD BLESS!!!!