Dawkins' Contradiction
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason discusses an argument offered in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion."
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CONNECT -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975. If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you'd like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at www.str.org/br....
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: str.org/donate
Dawkins-one of the most famous atheists of the world-does not really understand the biblical conception of God, which he spends much of his book writing against. Here are some resources to help you respond to the attacks of New Atheists like Dawkins.
How Should a Christian Approach the Arguments in Richard Dawkins’s Book?
rsn.pub/4bywUAP
Answering the New Atheists-Part 1
rsn.pub/4byG14z
Answering the New Atheists-Part 2
rsn.pub/3uzH6s5
Answering the New Atheists-Part 3
rsn.pub/3OFveeQ
Always Ask What They Mean by “God”
rsn.pub/3SBM0Nb
Reading the God Delusion helped me to become a Christian!
As an Arab Muslim, please contribute to spreading Christianity
Soft atheistic thought is a materialistic thought that is destructive to humanity
Then we discuss what we differ from, may God bless you
I never said he needed people. He is self-sufficient, and sufficient in his fellowship with the Son and the Spirit. But he created us out of his own pure pleasure. If he needed us he would not given us the choice to seek him. He would have forced us to worship him. And he created also us so that we can enjoy him!
Abraham did not change. He chose to bless the Jews out of a promise to Abraham. Was he displeased with a lot of them? Yes. Does that mean he changed his character? No, he kept his promise towards Abraham.
Hold on a second, lets rewind. You think life came from non life. That non living chemicals arranged themselves without purpose, meaning into something as complex as a cell. Then, that cell became multi cellular, then that cell learned to read and write, pondered about itself, made laws art and flew itself to the moon. And it all started with a purposeless cell which has been shown mathematically impossible to have formed on its own. And thats pretending the atmosphere would allow it to.
The majority of atheists would describe themselves as "agnostic atheists" as logic informs us that there may indeed be a God and its just a matter of finding him.
Not believing one way or the other doesn’t fully describe the issue. There might be a Bigfoot but I haven’t seen one and it is a surreal claim so I don’t believe but I remain “agnostic” as it is also possible.
If you told me you had a dog I am likely to believe you do, but I would still be agnostic.
Skepticism is very useful :)
He was speaking to another facet of himself. God's only begotten son IS God. And is with God. See John 1.
You aren't revealing anything. You are making logical mistakes / don't knowing what you're talking about.
God doesn't have to think he is only a man in order to experience life as one. Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God.
Why don't you study basic doctrine before pretending we believe things that we don't actually believe?
So he can't remember anything as soon as he turns God mode back on? Oh and by the way, HE TOTALLY DID LIVE AS A MAN. SHOCKER I KNOW. That was Jesus.
You're applying a lot of limitations to him that he doesn't have. When he was on the earth as Jesus, he was also God. Doing God-things and stuff. So he totally was one AND the other. At the same time.
Time. There's another issue with what you're saying. He isn't limited by such a thing. He made it. He is outside of it, but may enter into it.
Still not proof but fanciful ideas. I can accept a Big Bang and quarks flying here and there are cool but that does not prove that the universe came from nothing. God could be equally the causal factor in those quarks popping out of nowhere. After that, from the standpoint of a godless universe, you would have to accept that a mindless process resulted in something as incredibly fine-tuned as the universe. Mindlessness does not beget order--it is mindfulness and intelligence that does.
What is that evolutionary evidence? I am curious to hear those reasons. And are they undisputable proofs? And if it is true, I would like to know about it and be part of the millions that are coming out of it! I would love to know how the thing I am experiencing right now is a figment of my imagination!
"Yet, everything about god is a contradiction!" Yeah I know you think this bro. Whats new?
Jeez so many questions dude. He is not useless at all. I am living a wild life of impossibility and enjoying every step of it. "He made up his mind, he wouldn't change it, the course is set and we are all just running out the clock with god's plan until it is somehow completed" Not that he wouldn't change it, it is not in his nature to change it. Just like it is not in his nature to not love human beings. And that's true that's what we're doing. The Lord's day is not here yet. Time allow
Not a square circle and taken out of context. That was a prophecy made against Israel who refused God's mercy and relented in their evil and spat upon God's mercy. God gives them what they want--calamity and destruction instead of mercy. "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy" Yep no contradiction here. He wants to give mercy but if people relent and dont want to give mercy, he gives them what they want.
There is evidence. You just refuse to accept it as evidence. Now, let me turn the tables on you. What are your beliefs about the universe? If you don't believe in God, then your default belief must be that the universe came about on his own or that the universe always, yes? Do you have any evidence for this? Or to use a better more accurate word, do you have proof for this? Can you prove through neuroscientific research that God just a figment of our imagination? Curious to know what
You are making assertions yourself here. I have addressed your points above. As far as we conceive God, there is no time gap between his willing and his acting (credit to Edward Feser for this one). Since we are in the temporal order, when God wills something, we anticipate it--but from God's eternal standpoint, every event in every point in time follows from his one act (credit to Edward Feser for this one as well). This is what we mean by God being immutable and timeless.
mutually exclusive if you stick to Dawkins characterizations of the Judeo-Christian God. As well, and Koukl did not mention this, but God does not see things the way we see things--he can see eternity in one point, past, present, and future conflated, and what he sees himself doing in the future, he is doing now, and has done it in the past. So God is not necessarily a helpless victim of the future--when God moves, it is all done in one great eternal movement: "A timeless God ...."
Bud, did you watch the whole video? First of all, Koukl does not say the Christian God is not coherent--Dawkins says it and Dawkins uses the omniscience and omnipotence thing to which Koukl dedicates his whole video to. Koukl is suggesting that he is both capable of omniscience and omnipotence without running into logical problems. "f course, as I suggested before the argument for God falls apart anyway." We all know what you believe in, friend.
And if He were to do those things, it would be because He chose to, and hence would be in obedience to Himself, and those deeds would become righteous by the very act of His doing them. God is not subject to any higher power, nor are His actions judged by any higher power. God is perfect, not because He meets an external definition of perfection, but because He IS the definition of perfection.
You make it seem like the world's corruption wasn't planned. The corruption of the earth brought about something of a test that works to separate those who exist to follow the perfection of God and those who decide against him. Those who truly want to be with God for eternity are allowed to do so in the place he prepared for them, and those who'd rather not be with him (those who deny his existence, prefer another object of worship, etc) go to the one place in which he doesn't exist: hell.
you seem honest, but have you have given this subject an honest days work? What type of evidence are you seeking? Do you want to haul God into a Lab & run the standard tests?
As an atheist, you make the claim that God does not exist, what evidence supports that position? Don't give me a littany of complaints against the bible. There is a vid of a countryman of yours Dr. Peter Atkins debating William Lane Craig-this may provide you some of what you seek-curious to know your thoughts on it
@insanewarlock666 If the purpose of the world is pleasure, self satisfaction(P, SS) than anything that doesn’t bring P or SS is pointless especially suffering. The problem with this is that people who live their lives to have P and SS end up creating suffering and poverty. For example buying an LCD TV for P and SS, you see it was most likely built by people living off les than a dollar a day in poverty stricken areas of the world. This fuels the compny to continue and thus keeps peopl in poverty
@insanewarlock666 "but in reality nothing has a purpose" so what you are saying is that everything is pointless. so why do people bother with life then? you say it has no purpose, i assume you believe that there will be a heat death and that there is no afterlife, so we are all going to die anyway, us and all we make so what is the point in living at all? y do people bother puting up with all the pain and crap that happens in life if it is all going to amount to nothing at all? i want an answer
@insanewarlock666 well firstly your videos where bias, this one isn't at all, there are people from both side of the spectrum and its saying that only idiots don't believe that Jesus once existed. that there is more evidence for Him then most other famous/influential figures of that time. How do you explain that you believe that Jesus didn't ever exist when most historians do believe it? what do you base your belief on if you throw historical evidence out the window that doesn't suit your fancy?
@insanewarlock666 wrong again my friend, here is a list of REAL people who DID DIE for Jesus Christ within 60 years of his death most of them saw and where with Jesus. all of the 12 disciples excluding Judas , Barnabas in Cyprus, John Mark in Alexandria both in 64 AD, Nero killed and persecuted heaps of Christians between 64-68 AD, Onesiphorus who was martyred either in 65 AD or 81 AD, Luke and Timothy both died around 80-100 AD.
@insanewarlock666 if Jesus did not live. then how do you explain the thousands of followers, and the 12 apostles who where willing to die for him in the first century ad? the 12 apostles where supposed to have been with Jesus so they would no whether or not He lived and if he didn't why would they lie, to the point of death? People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
@insanewarlock666 as i said before slavery back then isn't like slavery now or 200 years ago, its wasn't racist sexist or anything like that. the thing wrong with slavery is how people are treated (being force against there will to do work and to get nothing out of it) but the bible say's that if you are a slave ,aster you should TREAT your slaves well, it also says that slaves are freedmen in Christ.
@insanewarlock666 yes i can firstly there is 13 000+ manuscripts of pauls writings. which going back to th 5 originals we have, computer analysis shows they are from the same person, so to claim that he doesn't exist is historically ignorant(theres more but im out of room) i think you should look into it more. secondly Pliny The Younger,Tacitus and Josephus all wrote about Jesus you must be mentally handy capped not to bielve what is universally excepted by historians that Jesus once lived
@insanewarlock666 haha firstly just a side note, Jesus did say any of that it was written by paul and peter in letters. but to get that they support slavery/ sexism is way out of context, slaves back then were people who could not support themselves financially so to survive they would go and work for a rich person and in return, would have a roof over there head and food, they where mostly well looked after it wasn't a racist or sexist thing, also the passage in timothy is paul's opinion
"than what are the miracles then?"
You obviously don't even know what it means when something is logically coherent and when it's not. This statement says it all. A miracle iss not an impossible thing--creating square circles is. The Bible NEVER says that God can do that which is logically impossible. You have yet to demonstrate that.
Is anything too hard for Him? No, but not in the sense of doing illogical things. That is not how omnipotence is defined. The video addressed that but you..
@insanewarlock666
It appears you still don't understand the concept. The Bible has no relevance in this discussion--it wasn't even invoked by the presenter. You're drawing dubious conclusions. At best your claim would show that the Bible is false, not that omnipotence and omniescience are incompatible. Omnipotence is as was presented and omnipotence doesn't require doing that which logically incoherent. Face your mistakes, there's no shame in admitting you're wrong.
@riseofatheism What if gives him the right is that he controls the after part of death, for all we know, those who died innocent could have a better out come then us. We can't control the persons out come after the time is passed, but the one who can does not commint murder because the outcome could be better then living. for the not innocent, well its just like why we have prisions.
@riseofatheism so then one must allow crime to continue with rape and murder down by us humans? To neglect the problem would be morally wrong, to solve it without breaking the value of freedom is morally right. Also to assume death as evil is call nature evil, for death is part of nature, just like love, and life. The reason for the death defines it as a crime.
Also their was no deceit in the garden, he said what would happen, and it did.
@riseofatheism well the commandments were made for humans, not for an eternal being, who exsited before the commandments, also the idea of death is not as evil as it seems. For us to take life is wrong, because we can't control that persons destiny, yet he who created the person and their destiny can, moving to the place he see's fit for the character. What your basically saying is something like J.K. Rowling is evil for killing off a character in Harry Potter. It doesn't really make sence there
@insanewarlock666 so 1.If the purpose of the world is pleasure, self satisfaction
2.Than anything that doesn’t bring pleasure, self satisfaction
3.Living you life for pleasure and self satisfaction creates suffering.
4. Thus living your life for yourself is pointless and can’t be the purpose of life because it is self contradictory.
Part 1: Let me take a stab at this. What Greg is arguing is know as the "Law of Identity":
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. So a circle is a circle and is not not a circle or in his example not a square. This applies to the nature of all Logical Absolutes. That which make things what they are.
@riseofatheism and the point is? you perpose that God works like a human does, but he isn't like the greek gods, he doesn't follow human rules to the 'T'. Also I say a leader who can follow his rules is pretty cool, and worthy of holy and perfect. It is us humans who need to follow these rules to be perfect and Holy, saddly we fall short of it with stains of our deeds.
@riseofatheism you forgot free will in the equation. Also you use your own definition of these words, and to do that makes the data bias. You got to think abit more looser and higher when it comes to God. We have destiny and free will moving everything. We have freedom of choice, but no matter what choice we make, the direction we head to will still be the same.
He is provable. But not in the conventional way you think. You must seek him sincerely with all your heart, and you will find. You are obviously closed off to God so you cannot find him. but if you open yourself up and seek him, he promises that you will find him.
illusions and attachments to the things in front of us. And he destroys it to bring us to that depth where we can purely enjoy a relationship with him, which is the reason why he created us. I have suffered a lot in the recent years but I can tell you that it was for the good!
@insanewarlock666 that makes him eternal and of infinite value. Basically God is the most valuable being that anyone can think of ..hence maximally greatest being conceivable. You are right infinity is impossible in the sense that an infinite number of things is impossible.
@riseofatheism we could say the same with the lack of non-bias definition of perfect from you.
We have justification, we see it through the ability of creating, through the ability to love, to judge and to give oppritunity to humans and still give them freedom of choice.
I haven't proscribed anything. I dont study apologetics. It is just common sense. What is it about evolution that I am misunderstanding? Arent you suggesting that this impeccably complex universe came abou ton its own through a mindless process ?
Dude. Dawkins is suggesting that God can make contradictions come true. People have pointed out that there is no power that can make contradictions come true, and we are not suggesting at all that God can make contradictions come true! Dawkins is!
It is frustrating to see smart people as yourself completely miss the point. Greg here is not forcing god to exist, lol. In this video, if you were actually watching, he was simply arguing about a incoherence issue that Dawkins brought up in his book.
Your immediate jump to attack those who disagree with you betray your lack of rationality and clear thinking. Rational, clear thinking people don't attack the person when arguments are presented. You might want to stand back and rethink your strategy
You are a sinner, you know you are a sinner, you know you have done things you are ashamed of that you would not want people to know about. Perhaps you beat off to your sisters friend, perhaps you stole from someone, perhaps your holding a grudge against someone and you refuse to forgive them, your a sinner. The simple fact is you know your a sinner, i do not even have to tell you this, you know it. You can deny it, but you know you are. Denial is not the answer, FORGIVENESS IS.
Its because of my mechanical background which enables me to think clearly about such things. This is not some small problem that science will figure out, origins of life research has turned into " origins of information " ..... Information is non material, if your looking for a material cause you already flunked. Like looking for crabs on top mount everest. You deny the obvious fact that INTELLIGENCE is the glove that fits. Your bias, has nothing to do with evidence for you. You hate God
what you do not get is if the engine is missing the crankshaft it does not work. Put the crank back in and remove the transmission and same problem. All the parts have to be there at same time to work. So how do you explain how all the parts that make up a cell formed by chance ? YOU CAN'T because its impossible. You do not have a self replicating cell until you have a self replicating cell. How did the cell form to replicate itself in the 1st place ? mathematically impossible.
Once again with your 40,000 Gods nonsense, i never said you go from know evolution is wrong straight to Christianity. At this point its a logical search. There are only 3 religions which are mono theistic. This is the only view that is logically plausible. At this point 1 has to choose which has the best evidence, obviously Christianity. Jesus left footprints, and fulfilled bible prophesy. He died the way they said he would, by who they said he would, and so on so forth.
life did not come from non life, its already been shown mathematically impossible. I explain this in previous comments, not going to explain again for you. If you bothered spending 1 minute a day looking at counter evidence against evolution you would know this, however you are ignorant on purpose. This debate is over, you lost a long time ago, i tried to give you time to redeem yourself but you failed. I am called to preach to the lost, not hold their hands and pamper them.
( SHAKES HEAD ) Please for the LOVE OF HUMANITY LISTEN ! Natural selection can only take place when you have crap to select from. ( You with me still ? ) So how did the 1st cell form ? The 1st cell had to be complicated enough to duplicate itself, perform cell functions, with no natural selection because its not living until its working and duplicating. So please please please explain to me your wisdom of how the 1st cell formed without using the word chance. THERE IS NO PROCESS
Besides the evidence, math, against evolution, there are other obvious reasons to not accept it. No other theory that i know of is riddled with as much fraud, lying, even preaching. You have to understand, this theory is to show how God does not exist, not how life began. You know there is no evidence for it when theres so many hoaxes. Another thing you will notice is, they never teach the negatives of evolution, this is bec its not about the science, its about disproving God.
To make an argument against theism, you have to assume a purpose in doing so. Since you assume a purpose and your world view that evolution occurred does not support such a view, you obviously do not accept evolutions logical conclusion. Therefore you do not accept evolution. You say you do, but your actions speak louder than words. Every man knows God, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Your pride is the wall between God and you, tare it down.
You made a huge error in thinking. If evolution is true, there is no meaning, purpose or morality. So it is you who is wasting their time contradicting their theories logical conclusions. You see you think there is a purpose in commenting, and that believing in evolution has some type of mystical meaning to it, as if i will level up and my hair will turn orange from it. The fact is, if it is true, than your whole statement is a contradiction. Your arguing from theist ground which means i win.
It is you who is delusional. Life from non life was proven false back in the 1800s by repeated experiments. Furthermore, no naturalist scientist has a clue how information arose from a blind chance process. There is only 1 mechanism known to create information and thats intelligence. This is based on repeated day to day experience, not evolutionary speculation. You have been schooled, and class is dismissed
it is nothing like flakes of snow. Like trying to explain the construction of a functional 747 by saying, its like flakes of snow, gradually over time, the parts were chosen from and eventually you have yourself a 747. No, the 1st cell had to be extremely complex, capable of duplicating in order to get it going. You need ATP for energy, proteins and dna, rna cell wall, ..... all at 1 place at the same time, and 100% functional. This is impossible, if it happened, it would be a MIRACLE.
Wrong, wrong, and a little more wrong. There is no explanation of how single cells became multi cellular. Any claim of " we created life " is ridiculously false. When scientist claim to have created life, what they mean is, " we used pre existing cells and replaced some of their dna extracted from other pre existing cells. It has never, i repeat, never been shown how a single cell became multi cellular organisms by natural means. How could it, the odds are so against it happening.
What is "deep" faith? What is "strong" faith? I don't care if you were "Christian" for 40 years. There are so many people that have been Christians for a long time but are not really Christians at all.
A square cannot be a circle and a square at the same time (that's what he said if you listen carefully). He did not say something like turning a circle into a square as you state; which is different altogether.
The bible consists of many different historical/prophetic documents (that would all be separate if no one sat down and decided to put them all together), so no, it's not circular. It's multiple sources.
@insanewarlock666 no my friend you are wrong again there is way more evidence for Jesus's existence then for any of the appostles why do you think they call it BC AD, BC being before christ?
@insanewarlock666 When we say God is infinite we are talking about His value ... and what you are talking about is that there cannot be an infinite number of things ...
He is probably thinking of Romans 1:20 "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." Basically everyone knows God by His creation, a fine-tuned universe.
@Lo Mega No, shaman doesn't "get it" but doggone it he USE to be a Christian !! That means he KNOWS what he's talking about.(roll eyes) yessirrrrrreeeeeeeee.
just cos dawkins says its contradiction...don't make it so. dawkins is illogical as has been shown, thus his assertion has no merit..he's laughable.
@riseofatheism thats like asking how do we know God created the universe, by looking at a blade of grass, by looking into our own self worth.
@sweetshaman no one is claiming you need God to be moral, but you need God to ground your morals. The atheists always get this one wrong!
Exactly! Thank you. Dawkins makes alot of assumptions
in his reasoning concerning God because he has God limited
to that of a man or super human being. In spite of his intelligence, he lacks the ability
to step outside his tiny mind and imagine a being (God) who is outside of time and space
who is omipotent and omniscient. He just refuses to let his mind think on these things...
If you believe god is outside of time and space, then we do not have the slightest clue of what that is.
@@Raphinater So what? Cosmology also says the initial state of the universe had no time or space, and we have no clue what that is. If your reasoning is a valid argument against the existence of God, then it is also a valid argument against the existence of the universe.
Richard Dawkins is a "superior intellect?" You are too polite... describe it how it is! :)
Otherwise I agree with the video.
Your correct, but man its so hard knowing he has ruined so many lives preaching his hate filled naturalist religion.
reasons.org/articles/the-appendix-adding-to-the-evidence-for-intelligent-design
Hi STRvideos! Conveniently intelligent is what Dawkin is...But then again we all are to some degree, if not careful. Thank you for the video.
the end was classic, " you get an F richard dawkins " ahahahahahahahahaha
@riseofatheism It is tied to Faith, and I think in one of gregs videos, he ties Faith with Trust, a very basic human thing in relationships. We are limited, so can't know perfectly, so we put trust into our beliefs, evidence and relationships. For those of meta-faith it is usally through philosophy,prayer,revelations or just pondering on things. For a christian it is trust in a Jew who got peirced in the heart, crushed lungs and put into a dark tomb, who somehow loved beyond we could ever do.
You don't have to be a Christian to believe in Jesus's death. The distinction is not the dark tomb, but the empty tomb.
My brother is in the ministry, he also believes in evolution and God. You can do it, but i will say this, you pretty much have to jump through hurtles to make it work lol. I will say this as well, though " he made man from the dust of the earth " does line up with evolution, it just as well could mean he used pre existing materials to make man. We make cars, and they are made from the dust of the earth as well, its a lot easier to say lol
Even “science” jumps through hurdles to make Evolution work.
I didn't know there were agnostic atheists. I guess I never really thought about it before. So you don't "believe" one way or the other, but you lean toward atheism. Is that what that means?
It's a rhetorical device. Usually, they say they aren't making a claim that there's no God, even though they impeach that claim with their ridicule and aggressive arguments. They do so in order to wriggle out of the burden of proof that comes with making the claim.
It's interesting to see your take on this and the line of reasoning you employ. I always just thought that ***in the event that an omniscient and omnipotent being exists***, it is only natural that we will not be able to fathom certain aspects of said being due to our inability to reason on an equal level. Just as the human mind simply cannot fathom the "beginning of everything", we likewise should not be so foolish as to assume that we are capable of fully understanding an almighty entity.
Have you ever tried to wrap your mind around a hyper cube? A God that consists of more spatial dimensions than us easily explains his omnipotence, and the fact that he is one but also three persons is somewhat of a mystery now, but I have no doubt that science will eventually come up with something that will make sense of it.
True. But... The spirit realm is, by definition, beyond the naturalistic boundaries of science.
As for the Trinity, if God created space-time, then God could use that same creative power to enter, experience, and interact with His creation as three Persons. Since God existed outside of space-time, He observed it as a separate entity, giving Him a full view of all locations and times, which explains omniscience. Since God's essence is spirit, natural laws do not limit the three Persons from occupying the same space-time.
@@richwheelernot to mention His ability to do the same with other things: pillar of fire, burning bush, etc.
I'm a plumber. When I look at every created "thing" here on earth as well as beyond, I believe in God. To believe in God I am perfectly comfortable not being able to understand or explain everything God or the cosmos. Dawkins and persons like him seem to be uncomfortable not being able to understand and explain everything God or the cosmos. To me, it is the height of arrogance and ultimately very foolish.
Praise Lord Jesus forever!!
science created atheists
Oh, there's a twinge. On occasion. But then I study things that have nothing to do with doctrine and realize it's all true and logical. I don't sing any arias btw.
See, you're imposing nonsense limitations again. They make sense to you, because of your framework for reality, but there's much more to reality than you can see. Visible matter and energy only make up an estimated 5% of the universe. Not to mention the 9 physical dimensions model + 2 dimensions of time.
So while he was 100% man he spoke to this "other" facet of himself which would make him not quite 100% man because he necessarily was man + something else!
I reveal plenty, you just refuse to use logic when looking at your God claim... you use logic it in "all" other arias of your life but not this one, it is a bizarre thing to behold from this side of the wall.
Does it not tug at your curiosity at all?
Is there never a twinge that you may be mistaken?
While his "God mode" is off, he is no longer God, he is a subset of God or God minus a huge chunk of God (doesn't quite make sense does it)
Then when he returns to "God mode" he is relinquished of this ignorance or reunited with the parts of himself that as a whole made him God.in the first place.
He can only be one or the other, ergo, lacks some knowledge in either position.
Can you not see the problem?
Accessing our mind does not solve the problem as he is still God when he does so.
What else is there to look at? I don't need to look at the complications of quantum physics or biology or whatever. I have no time for that. The universe came about on its own with quantum quarks flying here and there and frogs adapting to its environemtn and through a million years of evolution we end up with a human. The main idea in that? The universe came about on its own and developed into an impeccably well-designed thing through a mindless process. In normal life, when we see design
You are diverting from the point again. Stay on topic please. "ou feel a connection to god because you presume him to be there. Everything in your culture tells you He is there. And you in turn feel His presence." This is what you said. You suggested that if I lived in Pakistan I would strongly believe in Muhammad. I suggested that culture doesn't matter and refuted your opinion.
Many people say with their mouths that they believed in Jesus Christ, but they never did. People do it now and many do not truly believe in Jesus christ. Their actions would show. I do not need to look at that. Because if you are suggesting that religionists have an evolutionary drive, that cannot be true. For the reason being that some, out of superstition, are compelled to be celibate. They have no way to pass on their genes and replicate. And I agree science can be amazing.
Circular. And you are jumping all over the place here.
"But value on violence?" Yes, you would not call the wild incursions of nature on human beings as "violence". It just would be. I mean, that is the the nature of randomness. You cannot say things are unfair, you cannot say things are unjust because well...things just happen, randomly. A woman giving birth is equal to 50 men gang raping a woman in the world of randomness.
hahahahah you are funny man. It is not open to interpretation. Go do the actual research and you will find your answers. You have read 100 articles on the big Bang but you can't even look this one little tiddly thing up? Jeez dude. Secondly, I have no problem with translations. When I read something like that, i dont go "ahhh God is not omniscient anymore!" It is you that determines these problems. You want it to contradict to give yoruself more reasons to not believe in God.
That doesn't explain or prove jack. Your belief is still a hypothesis and a highly implausible one. Are you suggesting to me that the sheer design of all the things in the universe came about through a random mindless process? How is that overwhelming evidence? And how does the notion tha th euniverse is 14 billions years old give evidence to the fact that this unvierse "came" to exist on its own?
If that was true, why are so many Muslims coming to Jesus Christ in the middle east? Why are so many chinese coming to Jesus Christ there? Why are so many Indians as well coming to Jesus Christ? Their's is not a culture of Christianity. But those people sought, and they found even among the millions of gods that other people worshipped so I dont know what you are talking about. Also, you were never a Christian. Yep.
???? Who is running away dude? You are going nuts man, slow it down, its hard to catch up with you. I'm still here but I have addressed your arguments but you are sitll intent that there is no god. If you don't want to learn that there is a God, then well, you won't learn. Just like if you don't want to learn japanese, no matter how many sentences I try to teach you, you will never learn it. I don't know how to convince you.
You just have no complaint to hurl against God--why? Because you don't believe in him! If there is no God, and the universe is just a random mess, then you have to embrace it and not place any value on violence inflicted by the universe. It is what it is. It is not suffering. It just is. Now, to the Christian, he is not exempt from suffering and the violence of the universe. The difference is that there is meaning in suffering and that suffering is an opportunity for God to destroy our
will not help you arrive at any truth (I am being open to what you believe too, you know!) so you might as well seek sincerely. "Why did he create us?" To enjoy fellowship with us and for us to enjoy him and his glory as well. "What is the point of our suffering?" To a person who relents in his rebellion towards God and his insistence that he doesn't exist, there is no point. If you don't believe in God, then God allows you to be subject to the randomness and chaos and violence of nature.
s to make the decision to pursue God and his mercy. ""The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up." You have time to seek Him, and if you do, He promises you will find. Closing yourself off
Really? You should challenge them to a debate then. Or maybe it would be great for you to look up any resources they might have that answer those challenges--I am sure they have something on that. But if they don't have then maybe you should bring up these issues with them and debate with them. I am all for the truth, and would love for you to prove that what I am experiencing--a relationship with God--is a figment of my imagination. Cant wait to hear your researchon this!
I am not gonna belabor this any longer. You can accept these arguments if you want. If not, then I don't think this discussion will go anywhere. Anyway here it goes and you can do the research on it: in some of these cases, the word "repent" could mean regret, console oneself, to be sorry when you study the original text. In the case of the Genesis account, if you look at the context..then it suggests that God was grieved because of the sins his creation were committing. Now this may be
dictions true. but there is no such power like that. That means, if he didn't do it, just to demonstrate his power to change his mind, then you would be forced to say he infallibly knew what he wanted to do, but he ended up doing something else from what he infallibly knew what he would do. It becomes meaningless/contradictory. Again, he cannot make contradictions true. Moreover, I have explained above that God does not anticipate--he displays power and there is no time gap between the
is no power that can bring about contradiction. Even if there is, that would mean that even though the logical contradiction proves God's nonexistence, he can still exist, because he has the power to make contradictory state of affairs to occur. In either cases, Dawkins fails. If God knows that he will do something in the future (in the way we see it) he has to do it. 2) He can't change his yep. He can't. Because if he were able to, that would mean he would have the power to make contra...
It is not logical because Dawkins is not making it logical. Here, let us focus on Dawkins argument; "If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent." 1) If God infallibly knows that he will do in the future and doesn't bring it about, he may lack the power here, but that doesn't show any limitation on God because there
Because we never DEFINED omnipotence like that! If anyone who is the one redefining, it is Dawkins! Dawkins is the one who is suggesting that omnipotence can make contradictory states of affairs true, not us! And even God that had ability, he would have the ability to exist and not exist! lol. Your criticism fails both ways, bro. "his is why atheists point out that God was made by men" Right, that's just circular. "Koukl does not succeed at all". Nope, Dawkins fails.