Відео

That's really cool!!

But you have to understand there has to be a benefit of the doubt when dealing with humans that have free will, doing whatever they want. God makes decisions that have the best outcome and whatever decision he makes is his to make because he is God but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is good, he is just as well, he has to be for the better of his creation he cares for you more than you'd ever know, read his word for yourself so you may know.

God has given us all necessary knowledge if a man questions him then you can color him curious but if a man rejects the knowledge because it isn't what he wants it to be than color them a rebel because we base everything on God because he is the standard

I can completely understand your confusion... 1. Yes, evil was still allowed upon Job although he was righteous; this does not contradict the book of Psalms because God speaking specifically to someone in Psalms 2. Satan being cast out of heaven does not mean that he wasn't allowed back into heaven; many scholars debate if Satan can still enter heaven today; Bible never says otherwise 3. No, there is no sin in heaven because God is greater than sin. Satan being cast out of heaven was an act of his own free will. 4. Adam and Eve walked with God and still defied him just like Satan did... It's not always that evil is happening in the presence of God but for there to be true freedom in holiness there must be an opportunity to choose wrong 5. No. Many people believe that but that's not what happens in the context of Job... Satan actually asked God's permission to ruin Job(Satan is only as limited as other angels ie Jude 1:7) And God didn't allow Satan to do it to prove a point, But the point of the book is that we can trust God no matter what happens. 6. Job is a human just like you or me. He's not expected to just move on from his children and be happy...but as the book demonstrates he was able to find Peace and Joy in the Lord and live with the hope and security that no matter what happens God will be with him... 7. No, certainly not! But giving all your pain and suffering to God certainly can! 8. Job was never in trouble with God. Unfortunately the pain and suffering that he went through is simply a part of life. And we all go through this kind of pain and suffering differently. But in the context of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, one message does stand out; that if we fear the Lord and give him our all. He will bless us, either in this life or the next! And that's a part of why being righteous is so important, is because everything in this world is vanity, But everything in the next is forever! You have amazing questions, And I hope I was able to answer them for you! I know I'm about 5 months late to answer this but I do hope you see this! God bless you, and even if you begin to doubt always trust that he is there listening! If you haven't yet I definitely recommend reading the book of Habakkuk or the Gospel of John! God bless!

If you think a man being named Job is absolute proof that Job was a despotic king, wait until you learn about Jesus Of Nazareth and Jesus Barabas..

Job's friends.

There’s a whole ton of opinions on that.

That's another work.

@@biblewikis That's not an answer

We don't think God did it.... No one assume the existence of God without having good amount of data from different areas. So, it's easy to pull one off when it's considered alone.

@@biblewikis There is no data to support the existence of a god or the supernatural. But please feel free to educate me

I will be glad to do so. What platform should we use to chat on this?

@@biblewikis We are doing fine here on youtube

Well, it's not that convenient for me.

There's nothing like having Zero evidence, It's a fact that the universe was designed intelligently, that's if you know what that means. Nothing has help up to understand the reason for irreducible complexity in biological systems outside the answer from the theist. You may think otherwise, but that doesn't mean the problem is not sitting there for you to see.

@@biblewikis Oh no...are you a young earth creationist?

I don't think anything suggest I am in there.

@@biblewikis That's not an answer. Are you a young earth creationist?

We don't say the argument is asserting.... We only conclude on one fact, that throughout the study of creations, there's always a gap to fill, we don't have the answer scientifically...on this we conclude it's God.

@@biblewikis So...god of the gaps. The ultimate assertion. Thank you for proving my point 👍

Do you even know how the theists view the arguments you believe you explained. For example, what did you think the first cause was? Are you suggesting "Quantum field" prior to Big Bang or what theory do you hold? That's going to be weird. And I will like to see scientific work behind that.

Let's go to your argument on Design and order. Firstly, it's a easy to go example for anyone to easily understand the argument, in other to be able to apply it on all creatures, and not chairs in order, etcetera. And that's if you understand what intelligent design is. For example, Look into how your eyes is designed, even your whole self. You can easily claim one force do this, and that force do that, it doesn't answer for how it's done intelligently. I can give an excuse on how human are formed and try to get rid of a Creator, but that can't explain how any force outside of an intelligent being will create human (two genders), give one penis, the other vagina, ability to produce egg to procreate, create a housing for it, and means to provide nutrients and all needs, then a breast for the infant. That's what we call intelligent design, and the number is overwhelming across different organism. Secondly, you assumed an explanation for the formation of an object answer for the nonexistent of a creator. You're missing the whole point, and where theists do bring a divine being in. I can give a true scientific explanation for the formation of my door, but that doesn't mean no one actually formed my door and designed it intelligently. Thirdly, it's written in many places in the Bible that God governs the universe with laws . How can then one say I can use the laws to get rid of a creator when it's a creator that design the law. No matter what, our explanations will always request for a Creator.

@@biblewikis Part 1 of 2 *For example, what did you think the first cause was?* Theists suggest that the first cause is a god (and, funnily enough, always specifically _their_ god, no matter which religion we're talking about, which is why this argument is used by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, everyone really). The argument is that whatever this first cause is cannot, itself, be caused (leads to infinite regress... though I don't see how this helps since this first cause, itself, either has a 'first action' or else an infinite regress of actions _in itself,_ just pushing the whole problem back a step), must be powerful (though 'all powerful' is not required, just 'sufficiently powerful to have formed the singularity'), timeless (assumes time does not exist outside of the universe, which may or may not be true but is _problematic_ if not since all 'action', including creation or formation, that we _know of or understand_ seems to _require_ time), and spaceless (same issue here as with time). Then they try to smuggle in _personal_ as if atheists wouldn't notice that this isn't _required._ The argument here is that if whatever it is that caused the universe is mindless it must always be doing whatever it is that caused the universe. The _problems_ with that are _first_ it assumes that we'd notice even if it _was_ doing it (maybe new universes _are_ being formed constantly, but, of course, those are new _entire universes,_ so it's not like we'll see them _here_ in _this_ universe), and _second_ it assumes that universe formation is an easy or common event for whatever is going on (that is, that it would happen _concurrently_ with our universe and not _long after_ the heat-death of it, when no one would notice). *Are you suggesting "Quantum field" prior to Big Bang or what theory do you hold?* I don't hold a theory at all because there is insufficient evidence to decide the matter. There's at least two that seem semi-plausible _other than_ a god that I'm aware of, and the quantum field is one of them. It's an idea put forth by Lawrence Krauss. You may have heard of the book 'A Universe From Nothing'? As with a number of things, the word 'nothing' in physics has a very specific meaning, effectively that quantum field I was talking about. The idea is that this quantum field, and thus _at least_ gravity and perhaps _all_ the fundamental constants, is eternal, and just that alone will generate a universe of the sort we see eventually. _He_ has suggested this explains why there is something rather than nothing, philosophers disagree because it doesn't explain why there is physical nothing instead of philosophical nothing. _That said,_ all one has to do is say 'whatever reason one holds that a god exists is the reason that this quantum field exists', and leave it there. This idea leads to one or more variations of the multiverse hypothesis, either _sequential_ universes (in which case no universe will _ever_ notice that there are universes being formed) or _simultaneous_ universes (which I _still_ doubt any universe will be able to discover, but at least it's got _some_ chance). The _other_ plausible alternative to a god is the notion of the block universe. In _this_ model, we accept the reality of time as presented by the Theory of Relativity, in which time is a dimension like the three we're familiar with of space. When you look up, up is there, always, even if you're not in it. Same with down. Your position doesn't change that the other positions already exist. The same would be true of time. The past is _just as real_ as the present, and the future, under this model. It's know as the B-Series of time, and it's required to be the case for Relativity to function. Moreover, _without_ Relativity... we can't get back to a definite beginning to the universe (because things won't move quite right to get there). Therefore, under this model, the universe _as a whole_ (past, present, and future) exists, always has, always will, and there's no need to posit anything else. Call it necessity or a brute fact at that point, it doesn't matter, the universe _is_ and cannot be altered. I _do not accept_ *either* model, because there is insufficient evidence to do so. However the _fact_ that such models fit within modern physics (no violations we know about) means they are _plausible,_ and thus if we are going to sort out which of those two, or a god, is the _correct_ model... we're going to need _evidence..._ and we simply don't _have_ it. Without sufficient evidence, the only rational position is to _withhold_ belief until such time as there _is_ sufficient evidence. Kinda like a court case. You are accusing a god of existing, I, so far, find gods not-guilty of existing due to insufficient evidence. I _also_ find _any and all_ 'causes of the universe' to be not-guilty. That doesn't mean that nothing _did_ do it, just that the matter is undecided for now until we get better evidence. *Look into how your eyes is designed, even your whole self. You can easily claim one force do this, and that force do that, it doesn't answer for how it's done intelligently.* You're... kidding, right? How the eye happens has been understood since _Darwin's_ day. The eye is _not_ intelligently designed. It's formed by successive generations slightly modifying the light-perceiving structure over millions of years, with better eyes being more likely to lead to the thing having them surviving long enough to produce the next generation. I don't have the evidence for this next bit (because I don't care enough to look into it), but apparently eyes have evolved _multiple times_ on Earth. Even if not, we know that chemistry is affected by light (how do you think old time photographs work otherwise), and we know that _some of_ the chemistry of our cells energy-production mechanisms includes chemicals sensitive to light. All it takes is for the exact placement of that to be closer to the surface of the cell and boom! First light-sensing organ has started. Or get some of that chemical on the surface of a multi-cellular organism, and it can potentially react to light. A slight dip in that surface and now the light detection will inform the creature as to _which way_ the light is coming from. And so on and so forth. At each stage, the things leading up to the eye, from simple patches of photoreceptive cells on the surface to something as complex as our eye, or even _better_ eyes than ours (there are several eyes in nature that make ours look like garbage) is useful to the being that has it. The thing is, mankind has _overcome_ natural selection. You, sir, in a state of nature... wouldn't survive or have kids. How do I know? Those glasses you wear. They _compensate_ for your bad vision. In a purely natural setting, you would die and _not pass on_ the trait of having bad vision to your kids, so _your vision_ wouldn't be continued, while those who _do not_ wear glasses _would_ survive and pass on their trait of good vision. And _even if_ you somehow _did_ survive to pass on those broken eyes, your _kids_ would have _exactly_ the same problem and thus _exactly_ the same low chances for survival. It's like compound interest. It doesn't take much of a positive _or_ negative to drastically shift things over long periods of time. Also, just want to say, evolution isn't 'a force'. _Gravity_ is a force, _electromagnetism_ is a force. A 'force' is something that has direction as part of it. Evolution _has_ no direction in the physical sense. That is, evolution doesn't point up, down, left, right, etc. Just for clarity there. I don't want you confusing evolution with gravity. *I can give an excuse on how human are formed and try to get rid of a Creator, but that can't explain how any force outside of an intelligent being will create human (two genders), give one penis, the other vagina, ability to produce egg to procreate, create a housing for it, and means to provide nutrients and all needs, then a breast for the infant.* I take it you haven't looked into this _at all,_ then. First, sexual reproduction _predates_ male and female. The _first_ sexually reproducing things were single-celled organisms that traded genetic material. We know this because there are those out there that _continue to live this way._ Plenty of other things, even today, are _both_ male _and_ female at the same time as well, having ports for both. The idea that, over time, a species might arise where they are _no longer_ both at the same time is not a stretch, as this allows each member of that species to have fewer things to go wrong, and allows each gender to specialize. While we _now_ require all those bits to reproduce, there are creatures that _don't_ require them, and so the solution is simply that there were creatures that _had the ability_ *before* it was required, and then their offspring slowly grew to _depend_ on that ability over many, many generations. *That's what we call intelligent design, and the number is overwhelming across different organism.* Yeah, it's an argument from ignorance fallacy. It basically states "I do not know how this could have formed naturally, therefore it is intelligence." Nope, sorry, not gonna fly. *Secondly, you assumed an explanation for the formation of an object answer for the nonexistent of a creator.* If purely natural forces can account for the thing under discussion, adding a creator into it becomes extra baggage that isn't needed, and the thing falls to Occam's Razor. That is, if we have two explanations, A and B, that _both_ can explain how a thing happens or came to be, and B includes more things than A, then B should be rejected. *I can give a true scientific explanation for the formation of my door* Go for it.

Part 2 of 2 *Thirdly, it's written in many places in the Bible that God governs the universe with laws.* It's written in Harry Potter that Hogwarts is a school for wizards. Doesn't make it true. *How can then one say I can use the laws to get rid of a creator when it's a creator that design the law.* By noting that we cannot demonstrate that the laws are designed. The 'laws', in physics, are not like the 'laws' used in a courtroom. No one _ever_ breaks the laws of nature. It's not that they break them and are corrected. Effectively, a 'law of nature' is just a _description_ of 'how stuff behaves'. How something behaves _must be_ part of what it _is._ This is just part of the logical absolutes (everything is what it is, isn't what it isn't, and nothing is neither or both) which even _a god_ must adhere to (and thus cannot be the _cause_ of).

I asked what you say the first cause was, and not what theists say it was. You said you're not holding any theory, and if you're not holding anything, I don't see any reason to be engaging you on the theories you're putting forward. Actually, you are just making statements that claim to have some scientific explanation, without giving that explanations. If you want a thorough analysis from me, I need you to first lay down your theory for creation, not arguing from what you thought the theists are saying.