Graham Oppy: What would make me believe in God?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2022
- Atheist philosopher Graham Oppy is asked what it would take for him to believe in God. Watch his debate with Christian convert Guillaume Bignon here: www.thebigconversation.show/v...
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
I appreciate this kind of answer vs. the Atkins kind of answer.
Atkins is just fed up (like Dawkins) with talking to flat earthers, young earthers, and dinosaur deniers. I'm not a teacher myself, but it must cause a hell of a headache.
@@donaldmcronald8989 I had the same experience trying to explain statistical reasoning and methods to engineers in the government.
@@donaldmcronald8989 Atkins is a book smart buffoon! The witnessed emperical bedrock fact is in this reality we reside. blind mindless luck has always and will always produce unfunctional chaos. In the annals of witnessed observation /scientific endeavor raw matter has never been witnessed mindlessly flopping itlself into functional puposful complexity / information.( Life can only generate from life ) Thusly rendering athiesm a complete and utter guffawing illogical faith. How bout that little stone cold fact to grind your gears!! This is why 99% of the world's population laugh at this mindless unprovable joke of a theory. Lets all throw provable logic out the window and kneel down to the fantasy realm non existant creator known to the great saints of athiesm as the god of blind mindless luck! Buhahaha!!!!
Atkins seems dishonest in that regard. Someone who even debates but is extrinsically atheist.
@@acdude5266what was that like
"Peter Atkins, a very different atheist to you, Graham, let's put it that way"
made me laugh out loud
Really love listening to Dr. Oppy.
This was very helpful and thought-provoking, thank you
Likely what it would take would for him to understand Consciousness; what has been called by philosophers ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. If he solves that he will know what God is.
Thank you for your videos! I'm not a Christian, but I love learning about new ideas.
I believe the only way someone like Peter Atkins and Graham Oppy could come to a belief in God is through God's direct intervention. It would have to be a revelation from God [who would have myriad ways to invoke such revelation]. This provocative revelation from God could come in many different forms - from experiential to rational/emotional to heuristic, etc. and yet it would be definitive and compelling and incapable of being dismissed as hallucinatory or some other anomaly.
“Where there is evidence , no one speaks of " faith " . We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round . We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence .”
― Bertrand Russell
My issue with believing is how history has shown how and why god's are created. An additional reason beyond that is the lack of knowledge of what a god would want. People acting like they know god's goals or thinking they are above others like a god have committed the greatest atrocities of human history.
The concept is too problematic and incoherent to even act like you could believe in something you understand to any degree.
Also, if a god has goals, he is being opposed by some force outside him, which is an enormous problem.
@@LGpi314will it's evident we exist through miraculous circumstances.
If you want to believe it's an accident, fine. But a being so knowing and all powerful seems like the more plausible explanation to me
@@pepperachu it is not miracle. It is random na chaotic.
Only arrogant and ignorant humans think that universe cares about them. The universe cares about humans as much as it cared about dinosaurs.
@@pepperachu can your god create a rock that it can't lift?
What you have there is I can't explain something therefore God did it. That is what god of gaps fallacy is. Get educated, learn it then apply it. It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world. It is insane.
I was surprised, when watching episodes of Closer to Truth on the subject of consciousness that both Marvin Minsky and Steven Weinberg admitted that we could be part of a simulation. If the propensity of evidence or inductive probability pointed in that direction, then a lot more things are on the table of consideration.
Another interesting path of thought is idealism.
But it's as likely that god would be a simulation too.
@@PhrontDoor that's another step. Consider that this view was not even taken seriously until about 10- 15 years ago, a few years following Bostrom's paper.
I haven't looked into this in depth, but, much like the existence of God, it seems impossible both in principle and methodologically to know one way or another. If we are *in* a simulation can we see us and everything else in it from some outside perspective? Seems rather odd and pointless to think about.
@@wet-read I don't that it is pointless to think about possibilities that likely will not be demonstrated empirically or formally.
It might provide man with some modesty, if nothing else.
@@acdude5266
That's fair. I merely want to emphasize not having a dog in the hunt, so to speak. That is, not coming down hard one way or another (though of course I tend to be biased against the notion of this all being a simulation).
Arguments have their force modulated by what other facts we believe. I am not a christian but i now see that i used to have a way to strong belief in scientific dogmas. Especially the frankly magical belief that dead matter can create subjective experience.
@Anon Ymous Even if everything we observed was a emergent property of matter. (which i dont hold) Subjective experience would by its nature still be categorically different.
So it is actually very easy to draw a clear line between subjective experience and everything else. It really is the clearest distinction possible!
This is why I dont think that the separation between materialism and the other positions is about arguments anymore. I think the materialists just dont get how radically different from matter experience really is.
Lets look at your argument: You are making an empirical claim, saying: "all these things are like this, therfore this other thing must also be like this." Notice how you are smuggeling in the assumption that conciousness is just like these other material things. But what conciousness is made of was what the whole question was about in the first place! This is a fallacy called assuming the conclusion! And as shown above it is categorically different from emetrgent phenomena so the logic would fail even if you where not assuming the conclusion.
Additionally empericism is a philosophical position. You cant believe empiricism on empirical grounds. You must have some philosophical assumptions about rationalty and regularity etc to bleieve in empiricism. So philosophy trumps empirisism. Thats important because the reason why people are not materialists are philosophical not empirical.
So thats basically why i think your argument is wrong. If you want to know why im not a materialist you can keep on reading.
1. A whirpool is an emergent effect of water following the laws of nature. We know how, why and by which mechanisms it is connected to the larger body of water in which it has its existance. It is therfore perfectly reasonable to describe a whirpool as an emergent property of water. We have a mechanism, we have a theory, we have experiments and it lines up with a whole lot of other empirical knowledge as well.
But with conciousness there is not even a proposed mechanism or theory for how atoms pushing on each other could produce the experience of being you. Empirical beliefs held without mechanism, theory or proof is magical thinking.
2. That this experience of being you would be an emergent phenomena must be the materialists belief since this is the only thing it could be if materialism was true. But things are not true because it was the only thing that fit in the theory? Right? The question then is more about if materialism is true.
3. There is also strong philosophical reasons to discard materialism given that you in principle cant access objective reality (even if such a thing exists). Check out some of Donald Hoffmans work. I dont fully agree with him, but he explains the "anti materialist" position really well.
4. The brain experiments show correlation not causation, that you can press this region of the brain to make me feel the smell of coffee proves as much as stimulating the nerves in my nose does. Or even just opening and closing my nostrils over a coffee cup. Its the same chain of material causes.
Coffee lets off steam->molecules in air-> molecules hits inside of my nose-> nose produce electrical signals to brain-> signal goes to some part of the brain -> the materialist makes a magical assumption without mechanism or theory that this is how the feeling of coffee smell was produced. Its the same assuming the conclusion error as mentioned earlier.
God of the gaps fallacy
Oppy is a very honest and civilized debater.
Why does he vibrate and shake?
@@therougesage7466 he’s old! He maybe suffering from some sort of illness
The thought process he laid out in this video was very honest and reasonable
He makes a welcome change from some others.@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130
Peter Atkins comes in for a hard time I think for being a consistent Naturalist. It does not help that he is not in his comfort zone in philosophical debates. He is criticised for ruling out a supernatural explanation of any event. But Naturalism is exclusive. If everything has a natural explanation then there can be no supernatural explanations and if you have sufficient grounds for thinking that to be the case then there is no reason to examine every hypothetical supernatural claim you are presented with.
Criticising Naturalists for not accommodating the possibility of supernatural events misses the point. Naturalism would not be Naturalism if it did.
In that respect it is no different to Theism which by definition rejects Naturalism and claims that there is a Supernatural realm that interacts with the Natural one.
Theists rule out the possibility that anything they cannot find a natural explanation for must still in principle have a natural explanation (unless they are cessationists who believe the age of miracles ended with the apostles, a rare breed these days.) On their own worldview that would be an unreasonable step to take and I don't think a rational non believer would expect them to.
The best approach is I think the one Graham Oppy adopts which is to examine which world view overall best explains reality as we actually experience it and not to be sidetracked by hypothetical situations designed to make Theism appear more reasonable.
it is the precursor for WHY you have determined it to be the ONLY possibility. SO that is also not correct. You need to show why according to your presuppositions. You would have to begin undertaking a reductio on your naturalism which will reduce it to absurdity immediately and you would not even be able to KNOW if naturalism is true IF naturalism is true. But even the fact that you are championing it is self defeating....
If you disagree, let us ask you what you believe is true, then undertake a quick reductio ad absurdum.. Naturalism isnt true because it is self defeating. Again ie. if it was true, you couldn't know.
This is also false as the Christian presupposed GOd at epistemic foundation and God created the natural order in such a way that it can and even must be understood. Therefore the reliance on naturalistic foundations is also built into the Christians fundamental worldview but with the presupposition that God made it (in so that it can be understood - internally consistent theological basis).
You have not even demonstrated a supernatural exists, so why go down that route at all?
If you had a natural explanation for the supernatural, then it would cease to be called the supernatural.
@@2l84me8 duh.. lol
the evidence for the supernatural is by personal experience. But Im not sure who is using that as evidence for an unbeliever. It is personal held revelation by nature.
The argumentation to present the reality of immaterial worldview and Christianity in particular is the justification for universal immaterial transcendentals like logic and morality.
They are both universal, immaterial and eternal with real law properties.
@@arno7303 That isn’t evidence at all nor do I have any reason to assume christianity nor any religion accurately explains what you considered to be unknown.
How do you know there wasn’t a natural explanation for your supposed experiences?
Maybe you were mistaken or lying?
What happens if someone’s personal experience completely contradicts another person’s? Who do we follow then for the truth?
@@2l84me8 well you seem to be wholly unable to grasp basic english then. Second language?
If atheism is true, who cares if im lying? Caring that i am telling the truth assumed the Christian worldview as it is a meta-ethic that is ONLY justified by Christ.
All the Neanderthal atheist has to do is snicker 'it dOeSnT mAkE sEnSe' to anything literarily put forth and that's a refutation lol. You're just incapable of logical deductive reasoning especially with what is in front of you.
You didn't engage with what i said and again made a category error.
'show me PhYsIcAl EvIdEnCe for the supernatural." either you're super dense or a stone faced liar. Or both
At this point in our understanding of philosophy and science, I think it’s clear that an argument or a profound discovery is not forthcoming. God would have to persuade me personally, and because my background is deeply rooted in Christianity, I feel confident that I understand most of the ins and outs of religious belief. I do, however, leave open the possibility that I have missed something essential to belief along the way that is obvious to believers. That’s why I enjoy these sorts of discussions. I want to spend my life challenging what I think I know. And if that road leads me to hell, so be it. I don’t know how it could have ever turned out differently.
One of the best comments on this topic I've ever seen. You summarize my personal views as someone who was raise in a Christian community. I don't believe in God and I don't think I will believe in him or other similar concept ever again. Yet, the very possibility is exciting and I enjoy every good discussion about it. If the hell is waiting for me, it's not my fault - I tried my best as far as I'm concerned.
Loved your comment. I’m actually struggling with the possibility of hell (since my background is also deeply rooted in Catholicism) and also realized that a lot of my beliefs root from this fear… do you have any advice for how to actually pursue the truth and also dealing with the possibility of “hell” whatever that means…
So I would think if I saw god in person I'd swear I was hallucinating at first, but then I'd test it. See if my observations and tests could give reliable results. I figure if it's a hallucination that can reliably yield winning lotto numbers - good enough for me. That might not be philosophically defensible, but I don't need to live and operate with perfect infallibility. But yeah, if I just had an experience - that too would have to undergo some scrutiny. If I can't make reliable predictions from my experience, then it's just an experience I can't reproduce, test, observe...whatever. It would just be like Sagan's invisible dragon.
When it comes to personal experiences being used as evidence for gods, my retort is to say that my lack of these experiences should be considered proof of no gods.
@@danbailey2964 I wouldn’t go there. I haven’t experienced Australia. However, There’s enough understanding that if I didn’t believe in Australia, I could go about reproducing other people’s experience. But if I’m uncertain about Paul’s vision of Jesus, I have no way to validate or investigate that claim in an objective way.
@@pasqualecirone9755 The difference is that we know in many reliable and demonstrable ways that Australia exists, but we don't the same level of evidence for a god's existence. Therefore, a person's personal experience of a god is an unreliable pathway to truth.
But how would you eliminate naturalistic explanation, such as aliens or advanced technology?
Sums it up perfectly👍 “There is no convincing argument I have heard at this time that will make me change my mind.” (on either side)Thus the arguments will continue for the foreseeable future, anyone who likes to argue can just keep coming back to this channel when they need their fix. 🤪
Well said. Atheists have an addiction to argumentation. They do not wish to be convinced.
We will just run out the clock as they are destined to be replaced by theists given their less than replacement level birth rates.
Super easy to answer, you just don’t like the answer because our authority comes from God but you just want to Incline on human wisdom which is always flawed.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.”
Romans 1:18-23
@@JoshuaMSOG7 Hooray! You obviously love to argue too, isn’t it so self-satisfying 😁
@@cyberGEK Hooray! You obviously can’t reply to the argument stated.
@@JoshuaMSOG7 I never made an argument to begin with. My point shows how difficult it is for some to see others points of view if they contradict their personal beliefs. You actually started an argument over my simple statement not even realizing the irony in your response. Beautiful 😂👍
Some kind of action clearly showing love from a deity in today's modern world.
plenty of things in the world show me the evil nature of a deity in todays world, much more than love.
@@eapooda yes it's obvious God is clearly evil
@@Truth-Be-Told-USA what you said is completely illogical
@@myinstgiscarbenuim1693 wtf? What's illogical about wanting actions as proof of love? Sarcasm?
@@Truth-Be-Told-USA i was talking when you said god is evil that's illogical
It's incredible simple for God to do, but he won't, for whatever reason, show himself to me an prove he is real with examples of his power an knowledge, not even to "save my soul". Which simply tells me, either he doesn't care and is therefore evil for causing me to go to hell that he created or he doesn't exist.
It's incredibly easy for him, he's all powerful, he makes the rules, and according to the bible in his own words, he has broken those rules. Help someone find their car keys? Oh yeah he'll do it. Save someone from Hell? Nah, apparently too hard.
Interesting point of view. But why should He show up when you snap your fingers? 1. That isn’t consistent with the way God is presented in the scriptures. 2. God reveals Himself in many ways. Just because you don’t connect with those ways, it doesn’t mean He doesn’t show up. I see your point though. Valid question.
I understand your position and it raises valid concerns and questions about God not presenting proof of His existence to you personally.
But let me just tell you, that based on these words of yours, it seems to me that you seem to have some inner intuiton He does exist to be mad He doesn't prove Himself like you know He should do. Firstly, do you know what that proof would be like? What if your proof is this conflict between you and Our Father? (i say this because it's in my belief and religious teachings that you are my brother here on this crazy ride we call life, and we do have a lot of simmilarities if you think about it - just being here on this video exploring these ideas is one of them)
And why do you think that a gift of certain proof is better than an incredible and high stakes challenge? Isn't mistery better for the epic story that is your life here? Maybe this battle and struggle is a far superior gift than having proof.
Another question? From what bench of who's Court are you sitting on to be the judge of what would be RIGHT for God to do? From Your own Court? And from what Law? If are doing that you have to be a really Righteous being to be able to do so. If you are not, them you should be more careful before judging any being Evil.
And finally, have you ever consider that He wants you to be free to believe? This way you have a choice and maybe that is more valuable than knowing "for sure".
He is inviting us all to trust Him that He knows what He is doing.
Hope this helped raise some cool things to think about ;)
Peace
Don't you know the story of Lazar and the rich man?
Evidence will never be enough for someone who does not want Him.
But to God's credit, He has many other ways of bringing someone to Himself.
Don't think you can blame God when you die for not believing. In fact, you'll be relentless in the evidence that the proofs were constant. But that only your heart was not receptive.
@@tk97300
Whatever you have to tell yourself to explain away the fact that your god doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to most people.😂
I always thought if god outright reveled himself it would ruin an authentic human experience I would look at more eastern ways of thinking about god as its completely different and it gives valuable insight on this question.
Someone posted this on Quora though I may not have it exactly as the original.
That's why I never date women. I get friends to write books about me and they try to get women to read them and fall in love with me. It wouldn't be TRUE love if they got to know me first.
I think the mistake in these sort of ideology-oriented approaches to being convinced of truth is thay we first become convinced of an ideology and then we think there must be some evidence that overturns thay ideology. Further, the notion that through logic we can know at what objective point certain evidence DEMANDS certain conclusions.
That really isn't how the world operates, though. Evidence does not demand a conclusion. In effect all each person can do is look at the evidence and make a bet based on that evidence. Each of us has a different "evidentiary tuning" that leads us to find certain conclusions more or less plausible based on given evidence. This is why as a religious person I do not judge the non religious or think lesser of them in any way. We each make our bets based not only on evidence but also on our risk assessment.
If, given equal evidence, one has to choose between two beliefs and the consequences for being wrong are low, many or most may decide not to believe a given conclusion. However if the stakes for being wrong are especially high and only on one side, the cost-benefit analysis may push more people to believe differently. This is perhaps not very "philosophical," but IMO it doesn't matter, because this is actually the approach every single person uses to make most or all of their day-to-day decisions, and I see no reason why abstract problems should be thought of differently.
In the spectrum of who is willing to believe which claims, there are gullible people who require little or no evidence, and there are people who require very strong evidence to believe something. Neither one of these is a virtue and neither one can be realistically applied to daily life.
In the case of belief in God/gods, we need to think in terms of plausibility and risk, not in terms of proof and math-like logic, because practical proof does not exist. No matter what, we could still be wrong.
In this case, as an Orthodox Christian, what would probably convince me not to believe Christianity was literally true (though I would still practice what it teaches because I believe those practices are key to the most fulfilling lige on Earth possible) would be if the Apostles of the NT were shown to have died as rich men or , perhaps less certainly, if it was shown that many other messiah claimants from the 1st century had very similar movements to Christianity that just didn't survive as well as Christianity did. The former because the entire religion of Christianity is based on the historic testimony of the Apostles, and if it were shown that they benefitted greatly from these claims that makes it more likely they were just cash-grabbing. The latter because it would demonstrate that the psychological state of the time was such that it would naturally lead to testimonies like the Apostles for relatively easily reproducible reasons.
Once the myths of believing are removed with the truth, truth such as Praeterism, then the real religion makes more sense. I have a series of Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which can make an unbeliever think again.
I don't know what would convince me God but i know should that would be God because he knows everything so he knows exactly what would convince me he exists
What would it take? The design for a working starship embedded in code in Biblical text. :)
Apparently, despite all the evidence plus schooling, there are flat earthers, e.g. What then is the role of evidence? Or is it the case that some people have themselves unpersuadable?
I'd say that in general, people who hold fringe beliefs, and especially ones standing on such shaky grounds have made a giant commitment. They make up for the evidence they lack by aggressively asserting what they think they know to be true, often insulting the opposition. So if they accept that they are wrong, that comes with an avalanche of self doubt, and all of a sudden, many insults they may have leveled at people holding different beliefs come back to bite them. In these cases, I don't think evidence is even the right way to go in disproving their beliefs, since they are emotionally connected with them.
Someone showed that flat earther videos bring in significant cash. There’s a UA-cam video on it
Around a thousand years ago Imam Muhammad Al Ghazali told story of a man walking in the jungle. A roaring lion ran towards him and the man ran as fast as he could to escape from it. He noticed a well in front of him and he jumped inside hoping to escape from the lion.
As he was falling inside the well, he grabbed onto the rope and saved himself. The man was so relieved but when he looked down he saw a big snake at the bottom of the well. It had its jaws wide open ready to swallow him up.
The man then looked up and saw two mice nibbling at the rope. A black mouse and a white were both chewing into the rope. The scary lion was still prowling outside the well.
The man's heart was pounding as he wondered how he could escape from this. Then he noticed a honeycomb in front of him which had delicious honey dripping from it. He stuck his finger into the honey and put it inside his mouth. It was delicious and for a moment he forgot about the lion, the snake and the two mice chewing at the rope.
Imam Ghazali explained that the lion is like the angel of death which is always looming above us. The snake was like his grave which all humans will face. The black mouse and white mouse were like the day and night which are always nibbling at our life (the rope). The honey was like this dunya which with its momentary sweetness makes us forget the death and the eternal life.
I read Said Nursi's Al-Kalimat and found this story (some points are slightly different) too but he didn't mention Al Ghazali. Could you please tell me what is the title of Al Ghazali's work where I can find the original version of this story?
cool story bro
I've read this exact story in Leo Tolstoy's 'Confession'. lion, snake and jungle were different, but the story was exactly the same otherwise
Ideas are won with arguments. Facts are won with evidence.
Give me the facts and I will personally find your God.
The bible says in those days parents would eat the flesh of their children. That is just one of many wraths prepared for the nations.
i imagined Keith parsons answer 😂
Actual credible evidence and an actual definition for a god may convince me. Not fallacious and god of the gaps arguments.
I have no control what I find convincing and as a result, that makes it hard for me to predict what would convince me precisely.
“A voice (from the sky) that speaks to everybody in their language, that’s just not in the cards for our world”.
Who says so? The wisdom of men? Why would we rely on the wisdom of men?
“And even on most Christian stories that’s not on the cards”.
Shall we rely on the wisdom of “most Christians”?
Or would it be better to ask God what His plans are?
What wisdom should we rely on then? If you are imply God, what are his plans and how do you know them?
@@reasonableperson3002 You ask Him to reveal Himself to you, to show you that He’s real, then you wait and “listen”. He communicates via His divine spirit spirit to your human spirit, but of course your ears, mind, thought processes are also involved. You might meet someone who explains something about Him that suddenly makes sense to you, or you might listen to something, read etc. God has various ways of communicating. But there are some conditions attached. You need to be sincere in your desire to know the truth, have a humble attitude, an open mind (at least partly open), and a teachable spirit, which goes back to an attitude of willingness to hear Him. Without these at least in part, and of course imperfect is ok, you will not hear Him. If you are fair dinkum, then he will reveal Himself in some way, and so will begin a personal relationship one to one with Him.
@@colinloechel8378 The piont I would stress here is that to believe God reveals himself to everyone in their own language by voice in the sky is no where found in the Bible. So when the atheist say that idea is absurd; I do not know why you object. The scripture does teach generally what you have said in your reply that God is known by his revelation both general and special. He has revealed himself to us in his word and convicts unbelievers of their need of a Savior. God may reveal himself directly to certain people like Abraham or Job, but the idea that He does this to everyone is unbiblical. We need to have an understanding of how God reveals himself that is consistent with Scripture.
@@reasonableperson3002 I was just referring to “a voice in the sky” as a metaphor for the various ways in which God reveals Himself. He is capable of revealing Himself to absolutely everyone, and He will ultimately do that in His way and according to His timing. For example when Jesus returns in power and glory that will be an amazing “voice in the sky”, speaking metaphorically. Ultimately “every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord” and just as in the case with Peter, that can only be because the Father has revealed that to each individual. And when He reveals the son, He reveals Himself.
I don’t see why God should bend over and undeniably reveal himself to any apathetic non-believer just for them to go, “huh, that’s cool, but I don’t care”
Existence is the most fundamental, over-arching and all encompassing concept. It’s the basis of all arguments and proofs. Hence, an arguments for the existence for X is perfectly backwards. That which exists is given directly in perception or experience - or inferred therefrom.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Why would a God that loved humans say that? Doesn't that sound like something that a Religious human who doesn't like smart people say? A real God would want the smart people to make inventions like printing presses and eyeglasses, to study nature to make books on Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Geography, Mathematics, etc.. How about inventing electricity and electronics and books on better economics, on building hospitals, etc.. A God would have to have knowledge of nature, Jesus is a supernatural superhero, not a Nature's God.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 You not understanding. This has nothing to do with what you have stated. God is referring to the Pharisees who thought they were wise and Intelligent thinking they knew everything about God and his wisdom. This is what God is saying, I will destroy their wisdom and Itelligence. They don't know what the scripture are saying and they think they do.
It is the same when God said “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.
Pharaoh hardened his own heart by hating God every time God would give him give him a plague. So, this is not directed at the wisdom or Intelligence of man, it was directed to the people who thought they were wise and intelligent and thought that they knew everything, they were full of pride, braggers, boosters, so God said I will destroy their wisdom and intelligence because they do not know anything about him.
Science today think they know how things come to be, but their wisdom and intelligence will be broken because they do not know how we came to be, they only speculate with the bosting that they know how the universe came to be and us in it. THEY KNOW NOTHING! This is why their wisdom is destroyed they have no Intelligence in comparison to the works of God, it is destroyed.
@@ronaldlindeman6136It sounds like that, and it sounds like what the wise and intelligent would say about themselves
From all of the gods "Jesus Christ comes to vision"! 🖖🏽
There is only one God. Infinity is God. The ultimate reality
All you need to do is discuss the gene regulatory function of microcellular activity.
In English please?
It’s fascinating but not conclusive as far as a deity is concerned.
Why is graham shaking
It's a bit of a loaded question because it references "God". Well, what is meant by "God" in the question? The Judeo-Christian character? The Islamic character? A Deistic higher power type character? A Hindu character? A Wiccan divine essence of some kind?
If we assume the question just implies some kind of generic supernatural intelligence, transcendent from the universe, I could think of a number of things that would convince me. Proof #1: Since he/she/it/they can presumably do anything that's logically possible, I would request that it move the Empire State building from New York to Massachusetts instantaneously with all the water, sewer and electric hooked up. Proof #2: Realign some stars so that it clearly spelled out in English, "Let there be peace" across the sky. Proof #3: Stop the earth from rotating for a whole day, while making sure nothing disastrous happened. Proof #4: Take every human being on a tour of the universe.
Any of those things would be a huge indicator of a higher power, able to mold the laws of physics. Of course, any of that is still a very long way from the God of the bible or the Quaran, but it would be something.
What if you were willing to allow God to decide to do something of His own choice that He knew would be a “huge indicator of a higher power”, rather than you instructing Him on what He should do?
For example let’s take God as revealed in the Bible, do you think He would be capable of an action or actions that would convince you?
@@colinloechel8378 It would be far beyond my control to "allow" a higher power to do anything and of course the question didn't specify any constraints. It merely asked what it would take to believe and so I provided several examples.
However, going with your line thought, if I were confronted with people merely saying a higher power has decided this or that, saying that it has revealed itself via some ancient writings, then I would definitely not find that to be a rational basis on which to believe. Your question is a bit odd in that seems to be asking whether a "He" (presumably the higher power) could convince me anyway, even if I thought the basis was irrational. I have to suppose a very powerful being could control my thoughts in such a way that I would find this convincing even if I personally didn't find it convincing. But why would a higher power do something like that?
@@madmax2976 Well said, and great questions.
Up to “Your question”, I agree with everything you’ve said.
By “willing to allow God” I just meant what if you had an attitude that it was ok with you for God (of the Bible) to decide how He would reveal Himself, rather than you deciding on a test or tests for Him. My sense from your reply is that you would’ be ok with that.
If God could convince you of His existence etc, then your basis would no longer be irrational, because God is rational.
Let’s assume that God would not choose to control your thoughts, because he doesn’t want to force you or turn you into a robot. What if He caused or allowed you to be in a set of circumstances or experiences which brought you a point where you desperately wanted to know the truth. Do you think He would then be able to reveal Himself to you in a way that you would voluntarily accept the truth of His existence, ie of your own free will, not coercion? And be absolutely convinced.
Why would He want to do that? We’ll let’s say He wanted to develop a relationship with you, a positive, uplifting and fulfilling personal relationship. How would that be for you if it were true!
@@colinloechel8378 So, this is still a bit confusing. If I knew there was a "He" that intended to reveal itself via some other tests of its own devising, there would be no need for more revealing - I'd already know this higher power existed. I wouldn't have to even contemplate the higher power using some other method because I'd already believe. Everything that followed would be completely moot. It really seems as though you are suggesting I have to somehow believe in the existence of a higher power - that it wants to reveal itself and wants a relationship - *before* I have rational basis on which to believe it exists - so I can then have good reason to think it exists. Cart before the horse kind of thing if you know what I mean. But to the other point, as a hopeful agnostic, I definitely want to know the truth.
@@madmax2976 Let’s try this - when you meet someone that you didn’t know existed, there is no rational process involved, you just communicate with them, and get to know them. This is very similar with God, except you don’t see Him, you don’t get to control the conversation etc, you just go with the flow as He reveals Himself to you. You also need some patience.
You don’t try to prove He exists using rational thought process, but you do use your rational mind to examine, process, and test everything you hear. You could start with the Bible, but you would need to be willing to have God reveal to you whether it’s true, and definitely ask for His help to understand the words you are reading.
Again - patience, step by step, it’s a journey, a lifelong one of discovery and much more. Your last sentence suggests you are ready or close to ready. Pride and an attitude of independence gets in the way of hearing from Him, so ask Him to help you with those.
I hope this helps, and that you understand that I’m not wanting to tell you what to do, just to answer your questions as honestly as I can.
I think that for Graham Oppy to change his mind on Christianity, it will take what it took for me to change my mind. He will have to discard the things which he believes to be true on insufficient basis, and attempt to find a basis for those things.
I was an atheist from very early in my childhood. I converted after years of reading Krauss, Greene, Hawking, Dawkins and others. I still enjoy much of the work from these very intelligent men, but I am able to see their limitations better now.
You should make a UA-cam video ab it id watch
"Evolution is best understood from the perspective of the individual gene."
"Ah yes, God exists."
So what exactly led you to become Christian?
@billyb7465 A combination of philosophical realizations. I pursued ethics and morality in a Dawkinsian sense and started evaluating the world based on altruism for genetic reproduction. It ends up with a moral system of near complete deception and abuse, ultimately ending in self-destruction (which doesnt mean its not true, it just means abuse and deception for the sake of genetic survival can't be moral evils). In the field of physics and natural science, the issues with endless extrapolation backwards and the ad hoc approach of top minds to the problems posed by Hume ended up having no resolution under natural philosophy. Alvin Plantinga really hammered this issue home for me. And the metaphysical causality issues, where even if you are able to accept rationality with no good reason, and abandon all cultural mores, you can't really explain why causation exists without deism. And then even if you don't accept that as conclusive, any attempt as a historical philosophy comes face to face with the Christian history, an extremely high quality repository of often contemporary historical accounts written as the church developed and forming the basis of historical inquiry in many cases. Any historical metric that does not target Christian sources specifically as unreliable ends up denying almost all history older than 100-200 years.
If I were to remain a skeptical atheist after all of that, I would have to deny history, causality, morality, and reason itself for the sake of remaining atheist.
@@coreygossman6243 Excellent point.
What would it take for you NOT to believe in god?
Very long story short and I will be leaving out a great many details...
When I was about seventeen I went to a movie called Demon night with my sister and a friend and when the movie was over we left the theater and stopped at the nearby McDonalds.
We placed our orders and they got theirs first and then I got mine but by the time I had picked up my tray and reached the table where they were already eating, a terrible feeling came over me that is hard to describe other than to say it was unlike anything I had felt before.
I couldn't eat what I had ordered, not even a bite and so I waited for my sister and friend to finish and threw my meal in the trash and we left for home.
About an hour or so after I was home it was around 10PM or so I got a call telling me that another friend who I had been with just the day before had committed suicide killing himself in a most gruesome manner while his parents were downstairs and they found him shortly after. ( Out of respect I am not going into those details )
We were friends, but he was a bit of a strange kid and had annoyed me the day before and I was somewhat mean to him and felt terrible about it but also we weren't best friends or anything so I have often wondered why I felt how I did at the time of his death and none of our other mutual friends ever reported anything like it. 1500 people attended his funeral.
I suppose at this time I would have considered myself Agnostic but I was an Atheist by eight years old telling my Dad I don't believe in God and this event made me really question the existence of the supernatural which I was always curious about but didn't believe in as I had never experienced anything truly out of the ordinary that I couldn't just brush off or ignore but ended up having quite a few remarkable experiences.
Somewhat later perhaps a year or so I had a visitation from Jesus Christ in a dream and I assure you that when the God of all creation pays you a visit it is life changing.
As I think any normal person would, as time went by I would question if it was a real visitation or just a dream but there were very subtle details which happened in that dream that I ended up finding years later in the Holy Scriptures and nowhere else, one in particular I had to dig into the original New Testament language of Greek to fully realize that I had experienced the same and did not come across the detail until about fifteen years later.
To this day which is now about twenty-five years after the fact my visitation it is still as vivid in my mind as when it happened.
If a person will humble themselves and ask God with sincerity to show them the truth He will in a way they can understand.
Life is short and we are all just passing through.
Peace.
Thanks for sharing. That’s also the thing I am curious about. I have asked God to show me the truth for years. I haven’t heard an answer. If anything, I hear silence. Others have said I don’t pray enough, I don’t mean it enough, I must’ve done something wrong where God won’t respond to me. It’s unbelievable the excuses and responses I have heard and I recently turned away from the faith. I ask seeking to understand and yet, nothing. I have determined to become better in this regard than the other people who used my lack of desire to know God as a weapon against me. I actually seek to understand others, whether they are Christian or not. Maybe I just need to keep walking but I haven’t seen anything like that (that I can recall).
So bottom lining this. You had a bad feeling, and a dream.
Neither experience was specific enough to give you TESTABLE input.. like, your bad feeling didn't motivate you to mention that friend's name / identity BEFORE the call.
Please share the PRECISE information that Jesus experience that is ONLY found in the holy scriptures..
Sounds like retrofitting otherwise.. sorry.
Might have made you a believer, but it's seriously weaksauce.
He speaks to us in dreams according to scriptures. Don't let the blind plant seeds out doubt. Congratulations brother in Christ
@@blitzball4lyfe823 You are welcome.
Friend, people do not always have the answers and I do not claim to have the answers you seek.
God speaks to us through the scriptures primarily and it is with work and diligent study that we are to unlock their true meaning, with the aid of the Holy Spirit of course as they are in fact supernatural in and of themselves. ( Why wouldn't they be if God is real and is behind their creation? )
That being said your words bring to mind a passage where Jesus addresses the disciple Thomas who doubted Jesus in His resurrection and needed proof through feeling the scars or wounds still present on His resurrected body. (Thus we have the saying "a doubting Thomas" )
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝. -John 20:29
There are good teachers out there and if you are truly interested I would recommend seeking them out and giving them a chance if you have not heard of them, they are available on UA-cam just search for them.
The Shepherds Chapel
Mark13Records
JustThoughtsStudies
Peace.
@@PhrontDoor Think what you like, I did not comment to try and convince anyone of anything but only to share a bit of my personal experiences.
From the start I wrote that I would be leaving out a great many details but I will tell you that I do share some of them from time to time during in person interactions.
If you seek God with sincerity He has the ability to show you personally the things you need to know when the time is right.
Pray to God.
Peace.
One of the plot-holes of the existence a personal god is the entailment that humanity, or a particular tribe, is really the point of the entire Universe. I find that to be an extraordinarily myopic position; I don't think religious people think much about this much. This psychology could be better explained as just a 'needy personality' or having a fear of their own mortality, which is all too human. I personally don't believe that the universe cares about us and the next asteroid will come along ending of us (hopefully not anytime soon).
Israel, in all of their self-confessed and painstakingly catalogued failure, were raised up to reveal the power of a long-suffering loving Father. He will reveal Himself to you in His time - and no, you won’t be burning in hell or suffering any kind of mythical religious torment.
Incoming asteroids? You’ve been played, mate!
@@kenbarber6592 sure…. The Dinosaurs got played…obviously
@@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1 •. You are revealing that you have swallowed “science falsely called” hook, line, and sinker.
@@kenbarber6592 I’m not sure what your vague statement means; does this have anything to do with Bigfoot?
@@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1 • Nothing to do with Bigfoot. Don’t worry, God, our Father, will reveal Himself to you in His loving wisdom and time.
What would an ant need to believe in me??? The real question is...does the ant even possess the capacity to comprehend me??? God doesn't reveal himself to us except in baby talk in the bible...where he tries to speak down to our level...and even then its impossible to understand apart from his grace.
“Apart from his grace”.? I don’t understand….
I had an ant farm as a child. The only thing the ants could/would respond to as far as I was concerned was the availability of food, water, temperature,and something to keep them busy. There was nothing “personal” about our relationship. Nor is there anything personal about a deity of any kind. Our beliefs just keep us busy/occupied i.e. hope, meaning, and purpose. Nothing gracious about it. And if they pissed me off I could just add water. Sound familiar?
@@mr.c2485 ...you seem to understand it perfectly. What's the problem?
And the beautiful thing about that is it makes a universe WITH a god identical to a universe with no god.
probably the same thing it would take to convince me of pixies , demons, goblins, tooh fairy, santa, , scientology etc..
I've encountered many, many Christians in the last 5 decades who have the same view as Peter Atkins. They literally say nothing could shake their faith in God. Yet I hear people on here complaining that Peter Atkins was so closed-minded. There's even one comment further below that's ordered in a way that makes it sound like all atheists are like that.
They should try DMT
I disagree with Graham's proposal.
If God spoke concurrently from "The Sky" he would want to measure it and try and find a natural explanation.
It would need to be a deeply personal and profound experience.
I hope this happens!
While GOD spoke from the sky people claimed "it thundered" according to the NT. For some it won't be enough
@@wishyouthebest9222 That's because it was probably just thunder.
@@holdontoyourwig Sure...
Why would measuring and recording be bad? If I measure or record it to be English, for example and when I play it for you, you hear it in your native Esperanto or Mandarin, then that's MORE compelling than personal experience.
When I was a atheist the one seed that was planted in my head wasn't an argument, it was just a simple question that helped me out...
"IF" Christianity were true, would you become a Christian.
Plain and simple to get the point, of course this will never convert anybody but it always made me think.
Therefore I realized I didn't really know anything about Christianity in depth, let alone any religions at all, I never really studied them.
so I decided to study them, & when I mean study, I mean going in depth, not just sitting down & reading a couple books in the Bible, I mean really going in depth with scripture, & church history.
Not to give my testimony on my conversion story, but when I became a Christian I wanted to study "Why were the NT books in the Bible written"?
"How, & Why was the Bible canonized"?
"When were the books canonized 2gether"?
"How did the early Christians worship in the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd century"?
I never knew any of these answers, so when I actually became a Christian converting into protestantism I saw all the confusion and Division inside of protestantism.
So @ that point I still remembered that one question, that helped my conversion, so I just switched up the words & prayed to God for answers, bc was seeking for absolute truth not just some truth where I felt content at.
So I prayed to God....
"IF" Catholicism is true then I'll become a Catholic.
"IF" is the key word to this one question, & if you're truly in being intellectually honest with yourself, you'll always answer Yes...
So if you're an atheist, "If Christianity is true, would you become a Christian".
If you're a Protestant Christian, "If Catholicism is true will you become a Catholic"...
God bless u all...
""IF" Christianity were true, would you become a Christian. " No.
"Plain and simple to get the point, of course this will never convert anybody but it always made me think." I disagree.
Dr. Price is correct. The existence of Christ is a myth. You should listen to Bible scholars Dr. Richard C. Miller PhD, Dr. Kipp Davis Ph.D., and Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald. on their discoveries about Christianity while studying other religions.
You do understand that there have been over 4000 religions and gods claims and none of them have become ven close to truth with any kind of evidence.
If we discover that god exists then atheism will stop to exist but it does not mean we will start worshiping the god that by action is a narcissistic psychopathic maniac.
Would you kill your child if your god asks you? I wouldn't, never.
@@LGpi314 either u didn't read my comment, or u ignored everything I said, or you're actually just trolling.
Bc for one u said this is not going to convert anyone, when I literally said this is what helped convert me🤦🏻♂️ HELLO, so that argument doesn't work for u, and shows how that's just your own personal opinion, even though you're 100% erroneous. So u ignored that truth, when the topic is about admitting to truth, but u can't even accept that.
So obviously you're just going to accept what u believe is truth, even though someone tells you their personal experience.
Then to say "NO" u wouldn't be a Christian "IF" which IF is the keyword you're 100% ignoring, but this shows how intellectually dishonest u are..
Bc since IF being the keyword meaning that even "if" u knew that it's true, that means you're saying even if the Mighty God is true, and he is the creator of your body, your life, the air that you're breathing, and created everything that u love in this world, u knowing it's all bc of him,
that you're literally telling him NO, & not even going to thank him for creating your life, & everything u love in his creation, that means you acknowledge his existence but, still turn your back to him.
Bc what u just dont like his rules, then u would have no excuse at all to say if he exist or not.
So not only does that show how dishonest you are, but that proves there is no evidence in the world that could convince u anyways, even if God himself came down to u it smacked you in the face, you're still going to say your not real...
So therefore it doesn't matter what any argument u hear,
you're just going to bring more doubt to yourself, with your own personal beliefs, to reject everything u hear anyways.
So this clearly shows you're just intellectually dishonest, bc you're not willing to accept anything anyways, but at the same time u wouldn't accept those arguments for your own position, bc u would know those would be illogical arguments.
So there's no point to even talking to a dishonest person, & u don't even understand the definition of the word "IF"...
@@LGpi314 and you don't even realize that this ain't about a what-if hypothetical opinion type question, because I'm not asking you if it could be possible if a man can really transform into a woman, with real ovaries, and is able to get pregnant, "IF" that was possible would you marry that person.
There's a huge difference, bc That hypothetical what if question, could go both ways, because some people would accept that as some form of Truth, but it still would be about your based own opinion, bc that's not a logical question.
So by saying yes or no to that type of what if question, is not about being intellectually honest or not.
However asking about the existence of our true creator of our universe, this form of question is a logical question, to see if somebody is being intellectually honest or dishonest in their form of arguments, on one who is seeking for absolute true.
Cuz there's people that say NO to this question, and then say its because your God is evil, and they would never want to worship that type of God, even though that's still being intellectually dishonest, but that's still an opinion based way to answer that question, because that person would be begging the question, and assuming they have the correct interpretation of the Bible, to even truly know if God is evil or not..
But the question could just be turned around to, "IF" God truly exists, and he is true, would u worship Him? & take Religion out of it.
and you're going to have no choice but to answer YES to that question, if you're truly being intellectually honest with yourself, but either way you go if you still say no, then that just completely shows what a dishonest person you truly are, and I say that from my heart, just to show you there's no absolute truth in your worldview, it's not even possible for you to have any absolute truth with that logic my friend...
@onlylove556 This is a total bunkers. Man to woman and birth. What are babbling about?
God knows each person's heart and mind and so knows exactly what would convince each person individually. That means that either God doesn't exist or that there are no non-resistant non-believers on Earth now or in all of history. That's a rough dichotomy!
Thats only if God intends to convince every person. A good God would allow one to convince themselves
If one is truly committed to naturalism, instead of saying they will never forsake it under any circumstances, they should concede that they may forsake it if the conditions of the matter in their brains change in a way that necessitates that they forsake it. Saying you will never forsake it is evidence that you already have.
Depends on whether you subscribe to philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism asserts that the natural world is all that can exist.
Methodological naturalism concludes that our current understanding of the universe is only that of a natural world and makes no assertions about whether or not there is any more than the natural world.
@@connorgrynol9021 Agreed. And even if god exists, then naturalism would still be invaluable to explain all natural phenomena. Methodological naturalism is the most useful view of reality we have.
As it is, gods are nowhere to be seen. Supernaturalism is completely dysfunctional.
That's a pretty reductive way of looking at things. How does any belief about anything held by anyone change? Well, the physical activity in the believer's brain must change.
If Christians can accept that atleast some alleged personal interactions with christ have been misinterpreted psychological phenomena’s, than Peter Atkins is perfectly justified in assuming that he’s had some form of psychological episode after having “seen Christ”. Would this god not be aware of our knowledge of psychology and that we have good reason to not trust our senses, especially when under emotional stress? This god is clearly capable of interacting with us in such a way as to render any form of skepticism useless.
Becoming a theist based on an argument would be silly. Show me evidence or don’t bother.
What would make you the theist dismiss “your belief in ‘God’?”
not really a theist(I think?), but maybe a fail proof argument for his nonexistence? or a good rejection/debunk of all or most arguments and historical evidence for theism or some particular religion? a great argument for naturalism/materialism? something like that I think would most likely convince me that theism is false i think.
@@jonathacirilo5745 there’s no way to conclusively prove nonexistence. People are still looking for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and you’ll never be able to conclusively prove either to be nonexistent. The same goes for god, there will always be somewhere for him to hide.
All arguments of theism have adequate rebuttals. Most arguments for naturalism are airtight.
Historical evidence is extremely unconvincing to me. For example, if we’re talking about Christianity, even if we found definitive proof that Jesus had risen from the dead a day and a half after his crucifixion, that still wouldn’t prove a God, it would only prove Jesus rose from the dead.
@@connorgrynol9021 this isn't really true. if something is impossible then it can't(most likely) exist. if someone manages to make a good argument for tge impossibility of God's existence then they would be sucessfully desmostrating his nonexistence. some have tried this in the past.
meh. more or less. some arguments good, some are bad, some rebuttals are good, some are bad. I don't know every single argument and rebuttal so there's a limit to what i can say here.
idk about this. some of it might be, some might not. kinda? the skeptical could indeed claim that his ressurection qas caused by something else like advanced aliens or magic, but context matters and might be relevant here, his ressurection wouldn't have happened in a vacum after all. he talked about God and about being brought back to life by him so if he really did came back then that seems like good evidence for God's existence.
@@jonathacirilo5745 Sure, you can conclude that something logically impossible is incapable of existing. A square-circle could not exist for example.
I know lot's of arguments. I've heard multiple rebuttals for all of the arguments that I've heard. I've never heard of a argument that was convincing. And whether or not an argument is good is relative. Some arguments can be "better" than others but all of them can still fail, some just worse than others.
And again, _if_ Jesus could definitively be proven to have been resurrected, him saying it was god might be some evidence, but it's still not enough. Plenty of cancer patients how go into remission attribute their recovery to God, that doesn't mean that it was God that healed them. It's possible that tiny aliens whispered into his ears, claiming to be god. Then when he died, the tiny aliens healed him. I could come up with a million different potential ideas, all of which have the same explanatory value as God almighty (more so in fact, because God is supernatural in nature, tiny aliens aren't). There is a leap between the claim and the conclusion that you can't make with the claim alone.
@@connorgrynol9021 that's my point, yes.
idem. idem. can't say the same, some were pretty convincing. I guess so? sure but one or more of them can also be succesful.
depends on what one means with "enought", it would certainly be enought for many people, it would probably not be enought for some people. true but it could/can be at least in some cases tho. sure, it's also possible that there were no tiny little aliens claiming anything or doing anything. sure, the skeptical can come up with other possibilities(tho i disagree with the part about all having the same or more explanatory value than God almyght since we would have separate independent arguments/evidence for God existing but not for tiny little aliens with ressurecting capabilities, and something being supernatural doesn't necessarily make it less explanatory valuable), and the theist/christian can then either say that it is reasonable for the skeptical to do so but also argue that it is reasonable for them to accept it as evidence/confirmation of their beliefs(or that agnosticism is the only reasonable option maybe?) or that they are taking their skepticism a bit too far and being unreasonable.
If there's no counter-evidence or counter-reasons that could convince, either Christian or atheist, that their belief is not true, then it seems to me that their arguments are self-sealing. I don't want to put words into Graham's mouth, but it seems to me that strong evidence would convince him. He doesn't believe that there is strong evidence or a strong argument that is compelling.
Personal experience is worst epistemy. There are people who experience Elvis. That doesn't mean Elvis still exist
Monad (Greek for "singularity", or "alone", Egyptian/Syrian for "intellect")
has the same definition as
Quark (strong nuclear force) and
0D (point):
No spatial extension. Zero size.
Exact location only.
6 thousand trillion trillion trillion (39 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity.
Leibniz is our Universal Genius, not Newton. Read 📚 Monadology.
Match up definitions from Leibniz's works verbiage 300 years ago with quantum physics verbiage definitions today. Different words, same definitions.
Not a coincidence.
Our ten numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3,...9.
Our ten dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D,...9D.
0D necessary + 1D-9D contingent universe.
Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra can prove Leibniz. Update first four dimensions w, x, y, z to 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D though (as opposed to the current 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D nonsense).
Newton drinks his own pee.
1 is not the beginning.
0 is the beginning.
1D is two points.
0D (point) is a representative dot in a theoretical circle.
1 is contingent on 0.
0 is necessary.
There is no 1 without 0.
A piece of 1, no matter how small, will NEVER be 0 (without becoming 0, thus no longer being 1).
What number is before 1? 0.
0D (point) is "One with Everything", literally
". with 0".
0D (point) is
Monad (singularity) is
Quark (strong nuclear force) is
Soul (6 thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the force of gravity)
No spatial extension. Zero size.
Exact location only.
The FED has lost it and the sad fact is, it's pretty obvious we are headed for hyperinflation. I think stores better have tight security because when people can't afford to feed their families, things might get ugly
lnvesting in crypto now shouId be in every wise individuaIs Iist, in some months time you'II be ecstatic with the decision you made today..
@@Charlotte13265 Most intelligent words I've heard
Crypto is the new gold
I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price
I heard that his strategies are really good
Any any experience I could imagine that would point to god would more likely point to super intelligent aliens. We know that life and technology exist, and sufficiently advanced technology can appear god-like. Whereas we have no way of confirming the supernatural at all.
There when no atheists before the protestant reformation.
Isn't that curious?
If that's true, you won't have Bible verses like Psalm 53:1
@Pat Aherne What village has you as its idiot?
@@henrya1892 Wow perfect answer
Imagine a time traveler from the far future coming back to our time. His technology allows him to teleport, cure diseases thought incurable, among many different abilities. His technology is so advanced he can do it invisibly, due to all his devices being so small they can be embedded into his body.
He arrives to our time and declares himself God. When we ask him to prove it, he teleports before our eyes, cures cancer patients by the dozens, and performs all sorts of miracles. He challenges all the scientists to disprove him, but his methods so well hidden and our understanding of science so primitive that none of them can.
Is he God? Of course not; he's simply using sufficiently advanced technology. But because so many people jump to ANY belief if they aren't provided with a satisfactory explanation, this time traveler convinces many people that he is.
To my mind this isn't a difficult question and it doesn't require an sophisticated answer. God is simply identical to Reality. God is just another word for Reality. Of course the difficulty lies in what exactly is Reality? What exactly is the Nature or Reality? This question is much more difficult to answer and perhaps it will never be answered (at least not to everyone's satisfaction). We can't even agree on how we would go about answering that question (by what means) so it is highly unlikely that anyone can be persuaded one way or the other. Especially true if you really do not want to be persuaded.
God is not identical to reality. God beliefs are man made with the worst agenda. Religion is the poison for humanity and is preventing us from reaching our highest potential.
The religious could say to the atheist If Jesus come down and sat before them would that change your mind ??? The atheist could say to the believer in a loving god . Why are there there tsunamis and the like that wipe out tens of thousands of innocent people . why is there bone cancer in children . How can you still believe in a thoughtless cruel god . I know where my critical thinking takes me
If you were really critical with your thinking you would find the Bible tells you why God allows suffering. You dont have to believe it but the answer is in that book.
So your only idea of a “just” God is one that allows *no* suffering of any kind? If the current world we live in was free from aging, pain, suffering, sadness, would you believe in God then? Or would you still just say that it’s not enough evidence?
Most of the world doesn't eat according to God's health laws Ingesting poisons into our bodies on a daily basis, We pollute our air, water, and land, and then wonder why children get sick?
If people would live the way God wants us to many or all of those sicknesses could be avoided.
As for Tsunamis and other natural disasters, some people are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Mark 13:
2
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
This perishing that Jesus is speaking of here is the spiritual death that will come upon all those who reject God and in doing so follow death which is the Devil. (Hebrews 2:14 )
The Choice will always be ours but with much of the religious communities being corrupted most people don't have a real chance as we are all taught lies from birth but I assure you that all will get a fair shake before Judgment day.
That being said, it's never too early to humble ourselves and seek God sincerely because He has the power to speak to each of us in a way we can understand and show us the truth.
Peace.
PS: The Shepherds Chapel has good doctrine and though I once mocked them when I was yet an atheist I have been shown the errors of my ways so I recommend searching for them here on UA-cam.
Mark13Records
JustThoughtsStudies
..are also channels I recommend.
We know beyond reasonable doubt that Jeesus is merely a storybook character
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 Who is this "we" you speak for? Try speaking for yourself.
I know for a FACT that Yeshua Messiah Jesus the Christ is 100% real and you will too one day whether you like it or not so best seek the truth early and not what you want to be true.
"Atheist Philosopher"?
9/10 scientists are atheist
8.5/10 philosophers are atheist
Cite your source please. Those figures look totally invented.
@@rl7012 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding religious belief conducted in 1998 by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, and published in Nature Magazine.
@@rl7012 Are you saying "those figures look totally invented" because you are a theist?
If so, what rational justification can you provide in support of belief in an omnipotent/omniscient being? Otherwise, without rational justification then, by definition such beliefs are irrational...
@@Akira-jd2zr I tried to check your source but unable to without buying a hefty subscription which I am not prepared to do. Besides your source is notoriously atheistic and narrative pushing and the stats you quote which I will have to trust you tell the truth on, are 25 years old! 25 year old stats from a highly biased publication that I can't even check.
Today the stats would not be the same and why you are so affronted to be asked for sources when you assert ridiculous stats is a bit naive, this is part and parcel of the science world.
@@rl7012 All of that is irrelevant. I'm not "affronted" at all and you are not the first to ask. All I really wanna know is: if you are a theist, what rational justification can you provide in support of belief in an omnipotent/omniscient being?
If you have nothing else to bring to the conversation then there's nothing to discuss.
*The crazy thing about all of this is, human churches are NOT teaching what GOD actually is, but instead preaching a GOD that doesn't exist ! According to biblical writings, it is written Quote; 1. In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD... YES, there are 2 WORDS... GOD is one, which existed with another WORD in the beginning, removed from scriptures, by the Roman church canon ! GOD is a 'WORD'.. Spelt G O D in English, but to obtain the correct WORD, you need to go back to the ZION Language, ( NOT Hebrew ) as the "WORD" is a "Geometric Algorithm", involving the Language of LIFE... It is a '6 Pointed Star', inside a 'Circle' inside a 'Square'.... As I said it is a "Geometric algorithm", so to know what it reveals, requires knowledge, involving the Geometric Language of LIFE !*
For me it would be very simple, the god would have to make me believe :-) All arguments are of the same nature and they're just not convincing, hallucinations are just that, anything else - I can't think of :-)
Yes, IMO if god exists, then it knows what will convince me. So far nothing.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Atheists often have no answer, and you can tell they've never even thought about it before, when they're asked what evidence would be needed for them to believe in God. It's very telling.
I've thought about it hundreds of times and I still don't know.
Could just as easily flip it around; theists often have no answer, and you can tell they've never even thought about it before, when they're asked what evidence would be needed for them to stop believing in god. It's very telling.
@@bubbafowpend9943 Well, perhaps I could help. The first thing is to realize that scientific (physical) evidence for God won't exist either way. This is because God is hypothesized to have created all time, space, and matter. This logically necessitates God would be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. That places God beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
The debate regarding whether God exists is between two opposing philosophical positions (Theism vs Atheism). Philosophy deals with topics beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. And in all philosophical debates, all existing scientific (physical) evidence could be interpreted to work for either side.
So what this means is: The ONLY evidence that could possibly exist for any philosophical position is logically valid & sound argumentation. These will be philosophical arguments (which can be *informed by* existing scientifically verified claims & laws of physics). But the conclusion itself (God) will never be directly scientically verifiable.
Once you understand this, you know where to begin to look for evidence for God.
And there are 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God recognized by mainstream academic philosophers. Type in *100 arguments for God* to see a Capturing Christianity vid covering the syllogisms for all of them.
Then, after that you'll want to look into the arguments for the opposing philosophical position (God doesn't exist) so you can compare. That's how philosophical debates work. Since neither side can scientifically verify their position is true, both sides share an equal burden to present rational argumentation for why their position should be believed over the opposing position.
You'll find the position *God doesn't exist* has NO logically valid & sound arguments supporting it. None. It only has a very few attempts and they're all objectively fallacious (logical fallacies do no serve as evidence).
So, in terms of evidence it is 100+ to 0.
@@bubbafowpend9943 It helps A LOT to study logical fallacies in depth so that you can easily identify if an argument is logically valid & sound... or if it's fallacious. That is the trickiest part, especially because many of the objections to Theistic arguments are fallacies but they're difficult to identify because they're fallacies of scientism (and many others).
But being able to properly differentiate between a coherent objection/arguments and a fallacious objection/argument is definitely the part that people generally disagree on the most.
@@bubbafowpend9943 Here's an example of one of the arguments for God (Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig)
A)Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
B)The universe began to exist. C)Therefore the universe has a cause.
It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits:
Spaceless - Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be spatial. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence
Timeless - Since time did not exist until the cause, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be timeless.
Immaterial - The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.
Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) - Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.
Supernatural - “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until this cause caused it to. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”
Uncaused - Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.
Personal - This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning
All these traits that are logically deduced for the necessary cause of the universe's beginning match precisely with descriptions of God.
Blah blah copy paste blah. I don't want your help, thanks. I don't know what would convince me of a god... but god knows, and until he presents evidence that would meet that burden of then I'm fine in my disbelief... just like you're fine disbelieving in the other thousands of gods you don't believe in.
My favorite response to this question is Mario Bunge's.
What does it take for you to believe in God?
Bunge: a miracle
Damn! Now he's gonna have to define miracle and I'll have to agree with that definition.
Much better answer over the lengthy dance around the question that these atheists do
If someone is an Evolutionist at least there is the science of the flood which answers the fossil record to think about. Afterwards finding the truth in the Holy Bible and its particular wisdom that can convince the enquiring mind.
The flood doesn't explain the fossil evidence.
Further, there's no evidence for a global/world-wide flood AND a lot of evidence against the flood.
@@PhrontDoor The flood is the only way to have a fossil record, and a layer of sedimentary rock over the world is proof. The only way to get layers in the rock is by juxtapositional layering, which only happens in a flow of sediment.
Check out the mini Grand Canyon formed a year after Mt St Helens forty years ago, as melting ice cut a canyon revealing perfect layers of sediments that were a phenomenon until revealed.
@@simonskinner1450 Wow, so much of that is wrong.
Please show us the "layer of sedimentary rock" other the entire world?
You seem NOT to know how taphonomy works.
@@PhrontDoor Just watch any film from Australia, USA, China, Africa etc on every continent and you will visually see layers of sedimentary rock.
Decomposition of an animal caught up in a torrent of water and buried is a given. It is the rapid burial of living organisms that is interesting.
@@simonskinner1450 Ah, so you haven't any evidence. Yes, many countries have sedimentary deposits. And we can, in many cases, tell you how old those are.
Did you notice that there is NO peer-reviewed or academic or journal-level or scholarly research showing ANY evidence of a world-wide flood? NONE.
The biblical flood is supposed to be from about around 2200 BC.
Problem with that is there are civilizations older than that which lived RIGHT through it.
Respectfully.....
No religion (such as the Abrahamic religions) will ever be PROVED true because they are not based upon sound philosophy, and, instead, are based upon superstition, legend and hope (and, often guilt redemption)... that's why there are so many various debates regarding comparative religions and even massive debates within Christianity itself, such as dealing with the mind-numbing topic of the Trinity. My hope for humanity is that the world begins leaning and relying and practicing sound philosophical thought instead of force-feeding ourselves "religion." For example, dualism makes NO scientific sense, yet Christianity and MANY scientists can't let go of it in one form or another. All while nondualism fits the scientific observations better than ANY other "belief." To end your worries and suffering, while STILL retaining your divine spark, I would ask any and all serious seekers of truth to investigate nondualism... preferably Advaita Vedanta or through such beautiful minds as Alan Watts or more currently, Bernardo Kastrup. Philosophy is the future of humanity IF humanity wants a real future.
Jesus Christ is not a religion. He is living now and increasing His Kingdom every day. Multitudes of eyewitnesses and the billions of "born agains" who have been in the presence of the Trinity since his work on the cross. I would be careful of putting Faith in human minds. Luck on your journey to the Truth
@@brianedwards644 obviously, your prerogative to want to believe that. Good luck to you, as well.
I'd like to talk to Prof Oppy one day, or even on a Zoom. I was an agnostic at one point but i had a road to Damascus type conversion. I am also an ex alumni of Monash Australia where he lectures.
I discovered that faith in a higher power can truly only can get us halfway to God, but a direct experience with the supernatural completely obliterates the need for faith. You enter into knowingness, a far superior state than faith. An atheist can only understand this intellectually, but not experientially (which is where the real juice is).
I was lucky that i was too lazy to spend time thinking of God, so i was primed for a mystical experience that forced my life into a direction i was not prepared for. Atheists on the other hand are not that lazy. They spend a great deal of time shaping their worldview around the absence of a higher power, which fundamentally traps them in a prison around their own identity (ego). These high walls consist of every conceptual argument made to refute anything that challenges their identity. So they will never be convinced of any argument, because their high intellect and ability to defend their concepts protect them from having an ego-death.
Most atheist do not realise (or maybe they do, or don’t do or have failed to do anything about it) that at the centre of their worldview is unhealed trauma or trauma yet uncovered.
Then there are the public atheists. I believe they have it worse than all others. Unfortunately when they step out as an authority, their identity gets bolstered further by their followers. The community they build provides them with purpose, acceptance and respect, solidifying their identity to a point that even when presented with arguments they cannot refute, they will either misdirect, use dark humour, or provide the most shallow response, because there is too much at stake. A complete 180, would mean annihilation of everything they know to be true. And that is too painful, especially for people who are not even able to face their own personal trauma.
One can only pray that Atheist receive an encounter or an experience that is so identity shattering, they have an unescapable existential crisis, which leads them to a new found humility. A humility that gets them to ask new questions instead of provide old answers. The teacher must become the student in order to grow.
What faith are you
"Most atheist do not realise (or maybe they do, or don’t do or have failed to do anything about it) that at the centre of their worldview is unhealed trauma or trauma yet uncovered" This is a total nonsense.
@@LGpi314 yeah I realized, I read just a bit of it, he is absolutely lying, pretty much saying no atheist is actually and atheist they're just lying to themselves
@@LGpi314 Its not nonsense. You just have not done the work to figure it out yourself.
@@MohamedAli-nf1rp follower of Christ.
The way Oppy looks while he's listening, he looks genuinely angry and scary LOL
If you fell off a boat and were about to be crushed between two boats, where the possibility of the two hulls coming together seems equal as likelihood as not - might it just cross your mind, just the hope, perhaps, the possibility? But then the hulls don't come together, you survive, get rescued, shrug your shoulders and tell yourself: "of course not - it's irrational".
yes we do tend to act and think very irrationally when scared.
@Ur momma Well, that explains everything. Back to the day-job.
@@andrewfisherman3811 glad to be of help
@@urmomma2688 You said we think "irrationally" when we're scared. But being scared is part and parcel of the human condition: the way it has always been. Therefore, what you call thinking irrationally must also be part of the natural (human) condition. Which in turn suggests, contrary to all "naturalistic" explanations, that rationality is definitely unnatural, potentially false and an entirely human construction.
@@andrewfisherman3811 Being part of the human condition doesn't mean that we do it/are in that state all the time. Sometimes we are rational and sometimes not. Just like sometimes we are scared and sometimes we are not.
All I need is to see is an amputated limb grow back into a fully functional symmetrical limb, and I will believe there is something beyond the material. This is a very simple test for an almighty god. LOL
That's an absurd test - because we do have rock-solid evidence of something infinitely more impressive namely, the origin of the universe from nothing. If that's not going to convince you, why would the regrowing of an amputated limb do the trick?
Well, in that case, I'd try to find a scientific explanation for it before jumping into any conclusions.
@@JM-jj3eg No atheist and no modern cosmologist believes that the universe "came" from nothing, in a philosophical sense (ex nihilo). I challenge you to provide a single counterexample.
@@JM-jj3eg we don't know how the universe came into existence. Whether it was from natural forces or gods. We do know how limbs regrow, and why a human doing so would not be natural. That's the difference
Do you believe that numbers exists?
Stupid question, because your all knowing god would know what would convince each individual and should be willing to show everyone to remove all doubt.
Assuming that God's primary concern is proving his own existence...
@@therealmrfishpaste A god who demands we must believe in him without proving his existence, and threatening hellfire forever for needing demonstrable evidence is a retarded asshole, why create children that he already knows will burn in hell?
It is rather presumptuous to think what God should think.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.”
Romans 1:18-23
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
Romans 1:24-32
God is angry and unbelievers?
If the things are clearly seen then god would be obvious and you'd be able to demonstrate that instead of trotting out scripture that is self refuting.
Genesis 3:22 states:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
God is creating a divine Family, composed of spirit beings who have free will, A family of children, immortal children who could think like him. And, would choose him. Those are whom will be regenerated (by the power of God’s Holy Spirit) - through the holy, righteous character of Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 2:10-11)
His ultimate plan is to transform us into His spiritual, immortal image and likeness in the end. (Genesis 1:26-27; 1 John 3:1-2). This was His Master Plan from the very beginning. Man is created for God's glory.
Isaiah 43:7 states:
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
Jeremiah 29:11 states:
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
God is spirit and he is the type of God that searches the deep things of the heart to really show what's inside. (1 Corinthians 2:10-16)
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Romans 8:28 states:
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2)
To seek God with all our heart is fundamental to God’s revealing himself to us (Jer. 29:13).
As the philosopher & famous Blaise Pascal put it:
Willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
Hebrews 11:1 states:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
@@tobyc8668 So, you can't show anything that god did in the bible where he's good.. Makes sense.. cause he's evil.
Please bring Sam Harris he would give u the best answers to all these questions
Lol. He was a crank.
Men are saved by grace, not clever arguments. Your name is either written in the Book of Life, or it isn’t. Either you decide to put your faith in Jesus, or you don’t. The evidence is the Bible, and if that’s not enough for you, then the natural world is all you have.
*Correct ! Tell them WHERE "The Lambs Book of LIFE" is....*
Is only having the natural world a bad thing?
At this point, so deep into my atheism, no argument alone would change my mind, you would have to give me new evidence, something factual. Or God could just zap me.
You have all the evidence you just refuse to see.
Have a humble heart. Remove any prior atheistic dispositions and study Theology. Then, study the most reasonable "religion" that the world offers. You'll find that Jesus is the most reasonable and is the most accredited by other religions. And God will show proof that he exist. Not the other way around. But its all in the heart. Are you willing to accept theres a God? Forget naturalism and atheistic evidence , for God is supernatural.
Even if there were some never-seen-before magnificent occurrence, about which I can’t even imagine, I might say ‘ ok’ but I would never worship it. There is nothing it could say to justify the unimaginable suffering which it causes and then watches. Absolutely nothing.
If it’s a thing, and it’s given me consciousness, ability to critically think,ability to the decide my personal morals and values, its nature is in unresolvable conflict with mine. So no deal.
Well said.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.”
Romans 1:18-23
It doesn't occur to you that original deliberate rebellion against our Creator and Sustainer could have caused us to be plunged into futility, misery and death?
Because that is exactly what the Bible says.
Perhaps you're simply being evasive and trying to justify yourself, Jennifer.
@@JoshuaMSOG7 You may as well’ve typed out your grocery list- it would mean as much to me.
@@jennifer97363 I hope it was a copy-paste. If Josh took the time to type that out it seems likely the brain damage is even worse than it appears.
When I hear this type of discussion I just want to shout. How about theists start with 1 decent argument?
there arent any....theists like to live in fantasyland because they cant except the fact that this is it.
Well theism has more explanatory power, unification, simplicity etc, it's overall a better theory, although I find it hard to accept theism given the amount of unnecessary suffering, im an agnostic for now
@@SunlightSentinel Theism has zero explanatory power. And it is not a better theory than any other theory. Naturalism is supported by the evidence.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Not at all, First of theism predicts consciousness, explains the existence of mathemtacial and logical truths( they're grounded in God) but in naturalism you have to posit that they're either brute facts, or necessary but aren't connected, hence theism also has a better scope and unification, theism is even simpler because it posits that the initial state has no arbitrary limits, while in naturalism the initial state has an arbitrary limit, for example a mass of 108381kg or something, so by ockhams razor it's better to think that the initial state has no limits than some limits, why think that? First, all limits have an explanation in our experience to posit that the initial state does not is arbitrary, and second infinite values are always preferred in science in hypothesis rather than arbitrary values, this is just true. So theism wins in theory comparison. Sure there is some evidence for naturalism, EPOE is quite good, evolution, but that's about it, im not sure about any other argument which would favor naturalism over theism in a big way.
To me it would be convincing if there was a secondary source of the resurrection of Jesus outside of the Bible. Like Roman soldiers witnessing Jesus in a Roman source.
Historically illiterate Christians will reply to you claiming there are many sources. Let me cut it short here before it begins: there is not any.
Josephus and Tacitus are both 1st century historians who talk about Jesus, Christians, The Death of Christ under Pontius Pilate etc. There's enough historical evidence outside of the Bible that matches up with the Biblical passion story to make it at least worth seriously investigating. :)
@@JDsGameInn They talk about that there are Christians who believe in the resurrection. They didn't have accounts of eyewitnesess who saw the resurrection.
@@JDsGameInn Josephus was corrupted by Christians who changed his accounts and Tacitus does not say anything about Jesus. As I said in my previous comments, historically illiterate Christians will claim there is evidence of Jesus' existence when there is none.
@@JDsGameInn They are describing Roman Christian beliefs. It's like people on youtube describing Homer Simpson -- it doesn't mean Homer is real.
First ten numbers
(0, 1, 2, 3,...9)
First ten dimensions
(0D, 1D, 2D, 3D...9D)
Newton:
"0 is contingent" 🚫
and
"1-9 are necessary" 🚫
(this is the basis of Newton Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic).
Leibniz:
"0 is necessary" ✅
and
"1-9 are contingent" ✅
(this is the basis of Leibniz Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic).
Is zero the most important number?
Zero is the most important number in mathematics. Zero functions as a placeholder. Imagine a number, e.g., 5 and put as many zeroes behind it as you can think of. Zero drastically changes the value of the number from a mere 5 to 50, 500, 5000, 50000 and beyond.
Which is the greatest whole number?
There is no 'largest' whole number. Every whole number has an immediate predecessor, except 0. A decimal number or a fraction that falls between two whole numbers is not a whole number.
Why is it impossible to divide by zero?
The short answer is that 0 has no multiplicative inverse, and any attempt to define a real number as the multiplicative inverse of 0 would result in the contradiction 0 = 1.
Is 0 a rational number?
Yes, 0 is a rational number. Since we know, a rational number can be expressed as p/q, where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. Thus, we can express 0 as p/q, where p is equal to zero and q is an integer.
Is 0 A whole number?
The whole numbers are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on (the natural numbers and zero). Negative numbers are not considered "whole numbers." All natural numbers are whole numbers, but not all whole numbers are natural numbers since zero is a whole number but not a natural number.
Why is 0 a good number?
Zero helps us understand that we can use math to think about things that have no counterpart in a physical lived experience; imaginary numbers don't exist but are crucial to understanding electrical systems.
Zero also helps us understand its antithesis, infinity, in all of its extreme weirdness. 🔘 ♾ ☯️
Do you agree with Newton that "0 is contingent" and "1-9 are necessary"?
Then why are we learning Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic?
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
Eternal torment , if he does not repent of his unbelief, is what will convince him that God exists,and when he calls for God to help him perhaps God will tell him sarcastically to just think of it as not being real.
*From "The Gospel ACCORDING TO John", chapter 1, verse 1; Quote;*
*1. In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was WITH God, and the WORD was God...*
*There are 2 WORDS; The WORD GOD, and the WORD, the WORD GOD was with, in the beginning !*
*The 1st WORD, has been removed from scriptures, by the Roman church canon ! The 1st WORD is INZ !*
*Both WORDS are 'Geometric Algorithms', from the ZION Language ( NOT Hebrew )*
*So do you understand theses two Algorithms ???*
@@johnb8854
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
@@factotum1613 *How can anyone refer to GOD, if they do NOT understand what GOD is ? (NOT just you, but all humans)*
@@johnb8854
My understanding of who and what GOD is comes from Scripture, the bible. You may not accept that as an answer but that is your choice.
And what will you be doing in the meantime? Laughing? Smiling? Does the suffering of a fellow human being make you feel good? Does it make your god feel good too?
I find it easier to believe that God created the universe, than nothing created the universe. Blessings.
Well it's a good thing that no one is saying that literally nothing created the universe. Look up actual cosmological models some time.
Entropy always increases so in an eternity past it would have produced heat death.
@@jamessheffield4173 Well damn, maybe publish a paper with this explanation! It surely will net you a Nobel prize
@@urmomma2688 Jeremiah 18:12But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’
@@jamessheffield4173 Thanks for calling me evil. The feeling is mutual
Brierley is so shallow in his thought processes. He never gets beyond the obvious, and immediately heads of in another direction when his presuppositions are challenged.
"The sun softens butter but it hardens clay." (Greg Koukl) The evidence is not the issue. The issue is the bondage of the will.
You have it all backwards. YOU have to GO to God with your heart and ask God to enter your life. It is a choice that you get to make.
Problem there is... which one? Allah? Yahweh? How are you supposed to know when they all demand faith and don't provide verfiable evidence? They're indistinguishable on faith. Everyone always says theirs in the right one, of course.
How fortunate!
Oppy's tone is more measured than Atkins', but both have effectively committed themselves to an unfalsifiable atheism. Oppy can't or won't identify any evidence or argument that would dissuade him of his atheism.
@A P Yes, I think that an atheistic disposition is, at bottom, a childish stubbornness.
Nope. You're conflating the psychology of a belief with the epistemology of a belief.
@@MBarberfan4life And, how does this distinction bear upon the claim that Oppy has apparently committed himself to an unfalsifiable atheism?
Claiming his "atheism" is unfalsigiable and a "childish" position when your "personal" god exists outside space and time and there is 0 evidence for it is extremely hypocritical and childish of you.
@@mauricioquintero2420 You've just committed the "tu quoque" fallacy. And, what's more, you're simply incorrect; I can think of a number of ways in which my theistic position might be falsified, e.g., if it were discovered that the universe did not have a beginning in the finite past or if theism were shown to be incoherent or logically contradictory.
I would become convinced a God existed if prayer to a specific God was shown to be statistically effective. How wonderful that would be if we could cure illness through prayer! I would attend church and pray daily if it would help humanity. Unfortunately, studies by the Templeton foundation show that this is not the case. Based on these studies I can only conclude 1) God is not listening to prayers 2) God is incapable of answering prayers 3) God does not exist. The third option is most likely imo...
The problem with experimental studies of prayer is that they fail to meet at least two fundamental criteria: that of authenticity and that of the Sovereignty of God.
Praying is not a physical act (moving the lips, tongue and mouth, vocalizing sound), no, praying is about a sincere relationship with the One we pray to.
And God is Sovereign: He is not a vending machine to which we have found the right "code" to make it work.
So by definition, scientifically "testing" prayer is illogical, at least in the sense of the God of the Bible.
@@tk97300 I appreciate your feedback. It’s possible there is a God who has chosen to remain hidden from me. If he is a sovereign God who created everything, he owes me no explanation. However, I can’t force myself to believe in something without reason. I see none in the case of God. Why do you believe?
@@baskeptic1161 Thank you. The point is: did he choose to remain hidden from you? Are you sure you didn't choose to ignore it?
In everyday life, we ignore many signs about a situation because we don't want to see them: a husband cheated on by his wife who refuses to see the obvious, for example...,
We all have life experiences where, one day, the obvious hit us in the face, but we had a multitude of prior elements that we had ignored.
@@tk97300 Fair point. No doubt all of us can convince ourselves we have reasons that are not our actual reasons for a belief or action. If I can figure out that is what I have been doing I will change my stance. However, when I review my progression toward atheism, I am confident saying that I fought it all the way. I felt anguish over my doubts and was elated when I thought I found “good” evidence for God. Like, when my father took me to a movie about near death experiences. I was heart broken when I finally realized I no longer believed. My first thought was “I am never going to see my dad again”. Just awful. If I had a hidden reason for wanting to stop believing I would think my emotions would reflect that. Do you have any thoughts on how I could identify an alternate explanation for my atheism beyond lack of evidence for the God claim?
I recently heard William Lane Craig admitting that he lowers his epistemological standards because the story of Christianity is so compelling. Have you asked yourself if you are being honest about your reasons/motivations for believing? What are they?
@@baskeptic1161 Strange words from Lane Craig, you should know the context of this sentence.
You ask a good question about my motives for believing and what reason there is for you to want to disbelieve.
Before I do, I want to remind you of one thing about the subject.
Faith cannot be decreed, it is a gift from God.
No logical reasoning leads to belief intrinsically.
However, this does not mean that it is not a medium that God uses. In the same way, one can resist for a long time before wanting to believe.
The existence of a God poses enormous problems for a human being.
Many atheists, but not all, say that it is a reassuring belief. The reality is that the opposite is true, for although it is an honour that a God may care for our lives, in reality, if a God exists, we are accountable for the way we live. It's like a toddler, the parents will constantly be watching him, scolding him when he does something wrong. Similarly, human beings have no desire to be forbidden in what they love. If he cherishes something, the last thing he wants is to hear that he has no right to do it.
That's why you hear many atheists say that they are freeing themselves from oppression. Although it is not for their sake that God makes rules and sets a framework. This reason is totally sufficient to reject God.
Maybe you think it's irrational to reject God when you know there's a risk of judgment. That's true. But how often in our everyday lives do we fail to act rationally?
How many married men fall for women for the sake of a fleeting pleasure, when it will destroy the whole family? How much pride prevents us from simply saying to someone "yes, you are right", during an argument, when the most rational thing to do is to confess, rather than let the friendship or love relationship deteriorate?
The examples could be multiplied, but deep down, our soul does not want a God to exist, really.
When someone, at every act, points out our mistakes, it is so unpleasant. When that person keeps saying all the time: "you are doing wrong", it irritates us. So let's imagine a Holy God who is entitled to demand perfection?
Yet, in this whole matter, God is not implacable.
And I converted to Jesus Christ, because I realised that it was true that I had sinned, that a God existed. And that I deserved no better than his divine punishment.
It was a realisation, and although I had discussions with those who were able to preach the Gospel to me at the time, they were not great debates about faith and reason as can be seen here. It was really Faith obtained, yet I was a mocking atheist of Christians and rather a Cartesian.
So I was converted, because I realised that despite my sins, forgiveness was offered to me, it really touched me. It was really supernatural, because my sister said I was the last person she would ever see believe in God.
So basically - to answer your question - I don't believe because the best arguments at the moment are for theism, no. Otherwise, my Faith could be variable depending on the arguments. And probably, this would be the case for a purely cerebral Faith, which changes every time a better argument is presented by the other side.
That would be giving too much importance to human reason, too, by the way.
That's my long, honest answer.
Trying to speak to an atheist who is hostile to God and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness in a neutral debate is futile.
God’s invisible qualities,his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen,by what has been made,so that people are without excuse. They know God exists and on judgement day when they declare,”If only you had revealed yourself,I would have believed”,will only lead to God’s condemnation.
The message is repent and put your faith in the only mediator between God and man- Jesus Christ.
I'm an atheist and I disagree. I think the world could have come about without a god, and did. The evidence of god's work I certainly do not see all around.
If God wanted me to believe in him he could certainly arrange that. So far he hasn't made himself felt.
@@nicolab2075 You state,”I think the world could have come about without a God,and did.”
….and did!
I think the” Kalam cosmological argument “ for a Creator is a good one . But with the unbeliever in rebellion and hostile to God, I think a presuppositional approach is more successful.
Can you explain your bold statement the world came about without God as the creator ?
@@chrismachin2166 Well I think the Big Bang seems to be a reasonable explanation. There is even some progress being made to explain the origin of life, although even without a scientific explanation I wouldn't just assume it was a god.
The Kalam doesn't mention a god. It also assumes a start to the universe, and I wouldn't assume the universe had a beginning.
Most of all I do not have the feeling there is a god. If God wanted me to believe he could arrange that, so why doesn't he?
@@nicolab2075 “We’ll I think the Big Bang seems to be a reasonable explanation”
The only problem is to get a Big Bang you need a “Big Banger”.
@@chrismachin2166 But that could be a physical process, it doesn't need to be a god. And who knows what lies the other side of the big bang? We could be inside a larger entity. We have no idea.
I think if there were a personal god who actually is interested in is, I would expect to see some evidence. But to me the world unfolds as if there is no god.
Another problem I have with a god that is defined as perfect , as some are, is that if he is perfect, why would he create us? That implies a lack. And a perfect being does not lack, I'd assume.
The only thing that could break through the barrier is the entertaining of the notion that the atheist himself may not be the center of his universe, which of course is the very thing no atheist will ever grant. The atheist sees himself and his judgment as the measure of all things--of all truth--which limits his sight to the material universe, since all that man knows begins in the senses (even if it doesn't end there, unless you are an atheist, who deliberately cuts it off there, atheism being a doctrine grounded in the will, not the intellect).
Still no God. Thanks for the convo
What would make me believe in God?
1. If prayer worked the way it's described in the Bible (re: hospital prayer studies).
2. If Christians were more moral than non-Christians (re: Christian population in prisons or if crime rates were lower in religious countries).
3. If Christianity stopped splintering at the rate of one new sect per week and started consolidating as though Jesus gave clear instructions.
THE GOSPEL
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also
ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
- 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 KJV
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:13 KJV
SAVALATION
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- John 3:16 KJV
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
- John 14:6 KJV
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
- Mark 1:15 KJV
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
- John 3:36 KJV
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:7-8
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
- Romans 10:9-11 KJV
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
- Romans 10:13 KJV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16
Go away
"Will the Jewish people love a 45 year old, catholic, polish women as their Jewish Messiah" That's how I already revealed myself back in October. My name is MAGDALENA this time. If that's not enough proof that JESUS was a Messiah then there is another one. Everything God showed me and told me happened outside. GOD IS NOT INSIDE THE CHURCHES. TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW😥🙏🙏🙏🕊🕊🕊
What would it take for you to believe the moon is red? Come on! Work with me here.
Incentives are the reason for belief in God. If the incentives are good enough, then people believe in God.
If a tomb was found that contained the earthly remains of Christ, along with a gospel found explaining that he claimed to be God, but wasn’t, and this is his body, and how it got there, and it explained the things like post-crucifixion appearances then I would stop believing
Oppy is the GOAT
It’s not that there isn’t evidence to suggest A God, it’s that there isn’t evidence to suggest that we know anything about them - It’s entirely possible that the universe was created by some greater being, but that thought existed long before any religion tried to persuade people one way or another.
I don’t entirely believe in any origin of the universe, and how could I? How could I possibly know? All I can do is look at the discoveries humankind has made and make a best guess based off that, but I would never stoop to preaching my opinion as fact which is what a lot of those on both sides do, and it’s incredibly annoying.
The reality is that, while a creator seems plausible, there’s still no concrete evidence to suggest that it’s definitely the case. Similarly, while we can pretty confidently state that something like the Big Bang happened, we have no way of knowing how it happened or why it happened, nor can we explain how, if it was a God, how they came to be (Because they’re God isn’t an explanation and is fan fiction at best).
I will never be religious because I don’t believe that I have the answers in any regard, atheism is simply lacking belief in a God, that’s not to say I have other answers or that I’m saying there absolutely can’t be one. How could I ever know that?
One of the reasons people misrepresent God / are confused about God is the horrible translation errors in our bibles made by clerks of "a certain denomination".
They had no clue about God's intend, so made it fit their conviction.
Luckely the original line is clearly visible.
1: God created us after His own image and likeness. Gen 1:27.
2: Man fell. That is what you see in this world: lust, greed, selfishness, strange philosophies, sicknesses, corruption, terrorism, death, etc, etc. Genesis 3.
3: God, the spirit of life, manifests fully in Christ, pays the debt for mankinds fall so we can be indwelled again by His Spirit and be transformed back to origin. John 14-17.
Pure grace, love, power of God for His creation.
Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons His first friend, i and many others experience up to this day!
Some examples of these idiotic translation errors.
Saved, from the Greek Sozo actually means: made complete, brought back to origin.
Eternal life from the Greek Zoë means: life of God, divine life.
"You will see Jesus coming on the clouds" actually reads: "You will perceive Jesus from a heavenly perspective"... who He is, what He did, who you are IN Him.
"Everyone not found in the book of life will be thrown in the lake of fire" actually reads: "Everything not found in the book of life....". Every lie we believed about God and ourselves will vanish through Jesus's truth.
Wrath from the Greek Orge means PASSION. So there is no wrath of God upon mankind. God IS love!
Wrath from the Greek Thumos also means PASSION. There goes the "bowls of wrath" poured out by God over humanity... it's "bowls of boisterous PASSION" through Chris that are poured outt!!!
Etc, etc, etc, look it up in the Kittel Theological Dictionary or in any Greek/Hebrew Strong's app. It's there.
So now we have ignorant preachers parotting the lie that we have to be saved from God's wrath by Jesus (who is God....) and "have to repent or go to hell". Utter nonsense.
In stead it is: God restores us through Christ by His own atoning blood sacrifice and indwelling Holy Spirit, from mankind's fall, to His own image and likeness (Christlikeness) because of... passion.
For God so loved the world....
God cannot be tempted to do evil....
There is no turning or shifting with Him....
If you don't love you don't know God, for God is love....
The goal of all instruction is... love
The Father Himself loves you....
Jesus healing all..... love
Jesus raising the dead..... love
Jesus casting out demons.... love
Jesus controlling nature..... love
If wrath would be in God, it would be the tenth fruit of the Spirit.... and it is not!
Etc, etc , etc.
The fact you’re alive is not enough? God doesn’t need you to believe in Him. His existence is not dependent on you or me.
Amen sister!
Their existence IS dependent on me. That's because i ( humans ) invented them....all of them.
@@holdontoyourwig “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:9-11 (KJV)
@@holdontoyourwig Ah, you are your own God.
@@dylansheridan2892 Quoting passages from the book of your chosen religion means nothing. At no point does that prove your religion of choice is real.