Joshua said to his brothers who had sold him into slavery, "you meant it for evil against me, but God meant it for good." God himself says not to give credit for calamity to any but himself. God does use the evil intentions of man for good.
They study fully formed animals and note similarities between various species, presuming them to be from common ancestors rather than a common creator. But unfortunately they don't analyze an ongoing, observable evolutionary process. But because a hypothesis, by definition, must be an explanation of an observable phenomenon... the fact we've never observed it means it cannot be qualified as a scientific hypothesis, and given that a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and found to have merit, it cannot be considered a theory either. It is nothing more than an idea that, in theory MIGHT be able to be studied via the scientific method. And yet the closest thing to studying it we've done is look at fossils throughout layers of strata, have asserted using faulty dating methods that the rocks are from different time periods, and then asserted that one species must transform into another over time. That's sketchy reasoning at best.
Dude, we've literally SEEN one species transform into another, or more accurately one species spliting into two or more. This process is called speciation. It's so obvious that even most creationist organizations admit that it happens.
Did you know that you don’t have a fuqin clue how science works? Observable: mutations, selection, adaptation. Just sequence the genomes of parents and their offspring, or even multiple generations and you will see mutations, lots of them. Selection can be easily measured and quantified, e.g. as reproductive success (number of offspring), or selection of certain traits in a population or experimental group. Adaptation can be measured on many different levels, such as metabolic adaptation, color, morphology, adaptation to (higher / lower) temperature etc. There are countless reports on those in the literature. Repeatable: because mutations are largely (but not entirely) random, you cannot repeat their random pattern by random mutagenesis. However, we can reproducibly introduce specific mutations into most model organisms, including bacteria, plants, animals, etc (in theory even into humans). That way we can easily study the effect of any mutation (small and large, positive, negative, neutral) in a very repeatable fashion. Testable: Take the mutants from above and test how they affect selection, reproduction or any other feature, such as metabolism, morphology, population structure. BTW - you can do this with whole populations too to get more realistic data on selection (obviously, bacteria and small animals are the easiest to test).
Looks like another person has fallen for the misinformation of the creationist movement and their attempt to redefine what is or isn’t science by their self imposed non-existing conditions and definitions.
A bit delusional here, no written work that old survive in its original form. From things be lost in translation over many centuries and many translations, too intentionally adding or removing things. Which various leaders did overtime, (religious or otherwise), especially with the various denominations preaching "their version is right"
That's a common misconception. We have copies written during the lifetime of Jesus followers that were preserved in ceramic and clay pots. We don't have to guess at what the originals say. We have 6000 manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts. When one of the books of the new testament was written, people would copy them down and take them to the different churches and those churches would make their own copies and send them on. Because we have so many copies, we can check them against each other. And we have copies of the Bible from every single century since Christ. That means we can see exactly what, if anything changed. What we've found is that there's actually no meaningful change.
Sorry mate, I must have missed the part where you proved Christianity was the authentic and not a counterfeit. The atheist argument holds water until you do (spoiler alert, Christianity isn’t the first religion that has ever existed, how shocking is that. Almost like it’s, not the original religion and is a different version of a god claim.)
Not to mention, we have thousands of pages of writings from Church Fathers in the earliest centuries all citing the same scripture, if it got changed someone would have noticed immediately. Having thousands of people who learn a text, hinge their salvation on it’s message and *don’t* agree with each other on everything makes it really hard to just mess with things.
From the first century. You don’t think the definitions between all those languages will differ. The Bible was not written in English. From Shakespeare to now the English language isn’t the same. How can The Bible not have changed.
It is literally a miracle that it has not been changed. I grant that. It is literally unbelievable that it has not been changed... EXCEPT that we have proof it didn't. Consider 4 points: 1. The fact that it hasn't changed is evidence of God working in history because it IS miraculous that the scriptures have not been changed. 2. There is a whole field of study dedicated to understanding ancient languages and the meaning of ancient texts from the time they are from. This study takes into account the changes in grammar and word usage over time. Those grammatical changes over time are actually the very thing that allows us to date many historical manuscripts. It would be like knowing a piece of literature was from 18th century England because of how often "thee" and "thou" are used and contrasting it to 21st century English with the absence of the same words. 3. We can also verify that the scriptures remain unchanged because we have manuscripts across more than 3 languages from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc centuries onwards. We have copies of scripture from EVERY CENTURY since Christ and while words and definitions change, the original manuscripts of the Bible are in dead languages that are unchanging. We can check every century of translation across every other century of translation and verify a cohesive and consistent meaning and wording. It's worth noting that modern translations aren't merely revisions of the previous translation, but each one goes back to the original manuscripts and tries to accurately translate into our present day languages, the exact meaning of the original texts. 4. The original manuscripts are written in dead languages like ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These languages no longer change and making copies of them is making copies of an unchanging original.
Cosmologists, mathematicians, and astronomers now agree that the universe had a beginning. The universe, being comprised of time, space, and matter, having an origin, needs a cause. That cause cannot be bound to the things it causes, thus the cause is timeless (which removes the need for it to have its own starting point), immaterial, and spaceless (being unbound to space it would be omnipresent). Another NECESSARY quality the cause of the universe would need is a will. It must be capable of acting since the laws of entropy require that an object will remain in the state in which it currently exists UNLESS it is ACTED upon by an outside force. Thus the cause must be capable of acting autonomously. A timeless, immaterial, spaceless, autonomous, uncaused entity is definitionally, "God." Granted, that only gets you to theism. But the Bible gets you to Christianity since it is the ONLY religion that actually teaches the kind of God truly necessary to create the universe. (I'm not counting Islam since they claim to hold to the same Godas Christians). All other religions generally teach that their gods had beginnings which REQUIRES their gods to be bound by time.
@@MCNinjaDJ The idea of "we have no explanation so it must be gods work" is called "God of the gaps" concept. If we were to stick to that we would sign diseases under the name of the devil or other ghosts instead of the bacteria. Just becouse we cant explain something YET does not proof the existance of celestial beying. The act about universe needing a will is just wrong. Edit: forgot to mention. How exacly are you planing to "find" the true one?
@wcalenielucekxd3337 I'm not arguing from what I don't know. I'm arguing from what I DO know. 1. Nothing with a starting point can create itself. 2. Time, space, and matter had starting points so their cause cannot be composed of/bound to time, space, or matter. 3. I know that the laws of inertia dictate that an object at rest will remain at rest until acted on by an outside force. 4. Since nothing begins autonomously something with autonomy must start it. 5. Therefore since the universe cannot have started itself, it's cause must be autonomous, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial which, by definition IS God.
the only so called evidence for the existence of god is the bible which has been edited many times by the church. Things where left out and changed to serve the churches ideas and power. Also the bible was not written at one time but over hundreds of years and not by the people who it claims wrote things down.
There are roughly 6000 manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts across 3+ languages dated to a range as far back as the first century. All other works of antiquity have, at best 50 manuscripts (though most are closer to 10) and they all date to multiple hundreds of years after the authors. The Biblical manuscripts date to within the lifetimes of Jesus' followers. Don't repeat this myth, it makes you look foolish. And don't take my word for it. Go do research and stop listening to reddit conspiracy theorists.
@@MCNinjaDJIf by the biblical manuscripts you mean the gospels, they weren’t written by eye witnesses. Someone wrote a story about a story that made the overall story better. It’s like every sequel ever, well, at least the good sequels.
As opposed to a really awesome theist argument for the existence of talking snakes & ginormous arks & magic trumpets & pillars of salt... The difference between counterfeit religions & science is that the former are unfalsifiable & the latter isn't. I'd suggest updating definitions... particularly in C.Popper's terms. Atheists understand, though... living in fear of death makes people slaves to fairytales... it's not bad in itself... just irrelevant in the 21st century.
@todaywithsam1643 Yes. It actually does. Most of the prophecies it gives have already been fulfilled in history and we can actually look back and see that the prophecies were written before the events and were detailed enough that they couldn't be considered guess work. For example: Jesus foretold the destruction of the jewish Temple in 70 AD and said, "Not one stone will be left upon another." Lo and behold, when the Romans destroyed the temple, they actually pried apart every stone so they could take the gold that had melted between the cracks. Not a single stone was left upon another. That's not guess work. That's not being astute. That's knowledge of future events. And this prophecy is known to have been recorded and attributed to Jesus as early as 40A.D. (30 years before it came true).
@todaywithsam1643 This shows you nothing more than that you looked up a list of supposed contradictions. Context gives enough clarification that I can say there is no contradiction. Indeed, there is not a single TRUE contradiction in scripture. To illustrate. The full verse of John 1:18 is "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is saying "no one has seen God (the Father) but "the only God (the God who is at the Father's right hand) has made Him (the father) known. The Apostle John who is writing this book, walked with Jesus who he is claiming throughout the whole book, is the one true God... and yet he has seen him. So we know there's something special going on here. Jesus is the fullness of God in human flesh who reveals through his own work, word, and character, who God the Father is. This can be seen in later passages where Jesus makes claims like "no one has seen the Father" and a few lines later: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Later passages of scripture make clear that any occasion of seeing God in the Old Testament was a beholding of Jesus before his incarnation. Thus there is no conflict saying no one has ever seen God (the Father) even if they have seen God (the Son). Note* Jesus Christ and The Father are the same God but they are not each other. This is part of a mystery of the faith called the Trinity. God is one being but 3 persons.
@MCNinjaDJ & then Johnny boy called the leprechauns over & says "finally... the pot of gold"... & there we are boys & girls... our fairytale for today. Next week we'll talk about a silly cult from halfway across the world in Palestine... lot's of talking snakes & burning talking bushes boys & girls... time for your nap.
@todaywithsam1643 cosmologists, astronomers, and mathematicians agree the universe had a beginning. That means time, space, and matter all have a cause which cannot be comprised of any of the three. Thus their origin must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, and due to the laws of inertia, to go from not existing, to existing, their cause must be an actor, that is a being capable of action. A timeless, spaceless, immaterial actor is definitionally God. God is a logical necessity given the existence of a cosmos comprised of time space and matter.
To be fair any truly reasonable atheist wouldn’t find that argument very valid and to say they would is misrepresenting atheism. Epistemologically it’s a bad argument. To be fair atheism is definitely epistemologically problematic, and therefore agnosticism makes more sense.
Yeah. Ok. But out of 100 atheists.. 001% of them are actually atheist. People who claim to be don't even understand the definition of it. They're just self labeling themselves out of laziness/lack of faith/ect. I couldn't say what the reason. Only that it's the statistics. Based off of a multitude of statistics across multiple sources.
I agree that most atheists give up the argument when they recieve push back on it and usually swap to some other argument. But I've seen a lot of big name atheists use that argument (Ricky Gervais as an example) to shut down Christians which is why I feel the need to address it in a very simple counter argument.
@rcatv7750 no, I don't believe there are goblins in my attic. Not because I have no reason to think goblins exist in the first place, but because goblins (by their description) have identifiable characteristics, and I do not observe anything with those in my attic. (Though I did have a possum up there once.) It just so happens that God also has a set of observable (but non-physical) characteristics, that I have reason to believe cannot be replicated within an alternative explanation, which I can observe in the cosmos and so I am not agnostic about His existence, I have evidence of his existence and excellent reason to believe he is real.
I do not beleive in God, but I agree that 'the problem of evil' argument doesn't disprove Gods existence. Nevertheless, this concept is outlining some other interesting thing that I would like to share with you. The premises are that God exists (let me just grant you that), God is all knowing and all mighty. 1. If God is all knowing he must know the future with 100% certainty. This is also often supported by the claim thta God is timeless being, God exists beyond scopes of time. And this is also suported by the 'theological argument' - if God doesn't know future with 100% certainty, than I can imagine a God who does, therefore the God in my imagination is more powerful, which he cannot be. 2. If God knows future with 100% certainty, than the future cannot be changed, even in slightest amounts, future is constant Otherwise, God would not be 100 certain 3. If future cannot be changed even in the most minor details, than a belief that one can make free decisions (it is possible for a person to choose something that was not chosen) is an illusion. Since the future is constant, the decisions people make are predetermined. (For example, I couldn't have not written this comment, or you couldn't have possibly not read this comment up until this point). Supporting argument: From the same theological argument, if your decisions can affect the future, than it makes Gods certainty in the future not perfect. If I can imagine a God who didn't have that problem, that would make God in my imagination more poweful than he is in reality, which cannot be. All this leads me to a conclusion that it is impossible to belive in the existence of God and the existence of 'free will' at the same time. Since your will is not determined by you (you do not have control over God's perception of future). It is important to note that this is NOT an argument against God's existence, this is an argument for determinism, which I btw believe in. And determinism does not contradict God in any way possible. Another thing to note is that I am talking here about FREE will. I have no doubt that will exists, it is just not free in any way, you do not decide what to want. And the last point is that believing in determinism does not make you just lay in bad and do nothing because "nothing matters, the fiture is already determined"! Let's imagine that Monday evening I began to believe in determinism. The Tuesday morning, the same factors, that caused me to want to get out ouf the bed at Monday, would still affect me at Tuesday. That is exactly what determinism is about, I do not have control over what I want to do But in a more grand sceme of things - beleive in what you want whether it is God or free will, or both at the same time, as long as their core beliefs and values are at least neutral in terms of their influence on quality of person's ethics, or you are not defending descriminatory, unethical, annoying and other bad actions from the behalf of some beliefs that in core do not entice such actions, than you are good
Hey, so I actually love your line of reasoning and agree with you on most of it. I want to highlight 3 points very quickly that I hope you may find edifying. 1. The fact that something is knowable with certainty does not mean that it is determined, only that it is knowable with certainty. For example: if I sit at the top of the waterslide and slide down, I know I'm going to slide down. It's not "determined" so much as it is the natural course of events. 2. The will is not the source of desire. The heart is. The heart's manifests the will in accordance with its desires. I don't believe in what some would call "free will" but in free agency. In other words, it's not that every decision is equally possible. Your choices are limited by the desires of your heart. If a desire is not in your heart, then you will not produce a will in accordance with said desire. I believe that each person is born with corrupted desires, inherited from Adam, and so each person produces a corrupt will. I believe God puts his laws in the hearts of men so that they have SOME desire to do good, but because the heart itself is corrupt, even those desires for good are tainted and the will produces is always tainted. I believe that, what it means to be saved or "in Christ" is that God removes the corrupt heart from us and replaces it with a heart that can PRODUCE good desires and a good will that comes from it. To simplify this idea: the heart of man begins evil and corrupt. It produces a corrupt will. This is what is meant when the Bible says we were "slaves to sin" and "dead in trespasses and sin." But romans 7 says that one who has been saved is set free from sin, not to absolute freedom, but to be a slave to righteousness. (In both cases we are not free to do just anything, but we are enslaved to good or to evil. 3. While God does act on the individual in the decision-making process, he does not alter the will itself. He acts upon the heart, which then produces a will in accordance with the state it is in. I actually made this video partly because I can't stand the logical inconsistency of claiming that the reason for evil is the free will of man. We have an innate sense (part of God's law placed within our hearts) that when we have the power and authority to bring something evil to its end, we have the responsibility to do so. To say God allows evil for the sake of free will so that we will FREELY choose to repent is like saying, "The police should not arrest the known serial killer in hopes he chooses to freely turn himself in."
@MCNinjaDJ Thanks for your response. A logical and calm conversation is so rare these days. I would like to comment on your comment, so to say 1. I don't think that the example with waterside that you have provided is a valid comparison for the following reasons: If I am in this situation, I don't really know with certainty that I would end up at the end of the waterside when I slide down, this is more of a belief or a assumption. Since there are things outside of my control, I cannot be absolutely sure that I would end up there - the slide may collapse or something can block my way or any other reason from the infinite set of events that can in theory happen to prevent me from reaching my goal. Sure, I would not act like I am not sure, but it is only a coping mechanism that humans have, because without it we would not do anything in the presence of any ever so slight probability of failure. On the other hand, God is all knowing that there are no factors that he is not aware about, therefore, he can have true certainty in something. I believe that it is not correct to draw such parallels between God and ordinary life since we possess vastly different qualities. I can not imagine knowing something with true certainty. However, I can logically deduce the consequences of someone having such quality. 2. I generally agree with that, even though the way you describe it in some particular instances is hard for me to agree with. For example I assume that by saying that God does not intervene into personal decisions you have meant to illustrate that we do have choice, however, my point wasn't in intervention, but in fact that he knows what decisions we are going to make. All in all, we do have freedom of exercising our will, but the will is not free. 3. I don't really know what you mean by 'heart' here, and in the previous point too, so I would appreciate it if you could clarify that for me. I hope you don't mean it is the physical organ that is responsible for that. (In general, this illusion of the heart being a source of our personality can be really easily explained. I would write it at the end, not to distract from the point right now). As the only option left, I assume that you mean 'heart' as a 'soul' type of thing. I don't think that soul exists. And even if it does, I don't think that it can be a source of freedom of will or any other personal characteristic. If you are interested, I can expand on that more. It would just take me much more time to formulate than I currently have, unfortunately. Thank you again for a nice debate About the heart thing: In ancient times a person was considered to be dead when their heart beat stopped, before that it was when they stop breathing (therefore metaphors of soul leaving body from the mouth and the symbol of last breath), then we learned that all that is technically not death yet and only the death of the brain means losing personality forever. And not even the brain, but particular parts of it. As a result, these symbols were creations of ignorance, and under current understanding, these organs don't have anything to do with personality - there are people with artificial hearts and lungs. It may turn out that even the brain can be digitally replicated perfectly. (That would only be proven if two subject: 1 with real brain and 1 with artificial one, would made the same decisions and preferences in any possible scenario) If that was to be proven, then it would be also proven that this sence of having something outside your body that is controlling your body and mind to be non-existent, but that is far from being tested right now.
@-_-5052 fair enough! And the feeling is mutual. I much appreciate a well thought-out, respectful discussion, which I feel this has been. 1. I see what you're saying in terms of absolute certainty, and I would take that opportunity to point out that I agree that a godless worldview is incapable of absolute certainty since it cannot account for uniformity of nature. What I mean is, if you walk down a road and the first 10k houses are red, that's no guarantee that the next house you come to will not be blue. Atheism assumes future uniformity because of past uniformity, though ultimately that's no different than assuming a coin will come up heads after flipping heads 100 times. The gross improbability that it would occur the way it did is not proof nor even evidence that it will continue in the improbable course. I have no issue here as I believe the order is kept by its creator, who has an intent behind keeping it. Likewise, I have no issue with the existence of immaterial realities (things that are true, independent from the physical world), including mathematics and the laws of logic. *I realized I got off on a tangent there 2. I apologize for the use of Christianeze as it's been sometimes called. Yes, I believe human beings have a soul and possess a "heart," which is essentially a spiritual organ and the source of what some would consider the conscience or gut instincts. Now, in the interest of defending this point, I'd appeal first to the fact that we both acknowledge non-physical reality. That is, we both understand that not everything that is "real" is also material. Now, to make the case for a SPIRITUAL reality/existence: science has shown that time, space, and matter all have a beginning. They don't exist eternally. Time itself can travel infinitely into the future, but it cannot travel infinitely into the past (since it would always take one more day to reach the present). Given that they each had an origin, whatever began them (whether spontaneous process or willful act) cannot be composed of them. Something made of material cannot be the origin of material. Something within time cannot start time. So we can conclude that whatever gave origin to these 3 components of the cosmos must have an existence that surpasses time, space, and matter. If indeed it does surpass these things, then it does not need an origin since without time, we have no boundary for a start and end point. I would make the case that, because we know an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, that the timeless, spaceless, immaterial thing, must also be capable of changing in some sense otherwise we would not go from a state of NOT starting time, space, and matter TO starting time, space, and matter. I believe this requires some degree of consciousness, and thus, we have the existence of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless consciousness, capable of setting the universe in motion. Again, I acknowledge that doesn't prove the Biblical God, but it makes a case for the existence of spiritual reality, that is a reality not bound to time, space, or matter, and not strictly conceptual. Hopefully that makes sense. Thank you again for the conversation, I really appreciate it
yes, no, maybe? This life is temporary and meant to be a learning and developmental tool. Developers don't give the game player character invulnerability. What would be the challenge? Or maybe you have to prove yourself worthy and life is the test.
The bible already has a great answer and analogy. Yeast has been likened to sin(evil) in the bible a lot. We know that in Eden Eve added the first small amount of yeast into the dough of our world. Anyone who knows baking knows that a small amount yeast infects the entire batch of dough, but we also know that this is what allows bread to rise when left to rest. We are in the dough(metaphorically) and are asking God, "if you are all powerful, why have you not removed all of the yeast?". God has already answered us with, the yeast will be burned when I put the dough in the oven to bake.
This is so incredibly short sighted. Sure cocoa powder is a good ingredient that starts off bad, But all the evil doesnt start off bad. A more realistic analogy would be to use shit in a cookie. Why use shit when you could just use chocolate?
@@SanctionedSDdid you not hear the video's analogy about bitter cocoa tempering the "sickeningly sweet" amount of sugar? I'm basically saying maybe use less dang sugar instead of having to dump something so bitter in? (You don't need to add evil to the world to balance the good out, just don't overload us with so much "sickeningly sweet" good all the time...
@@jonathan_herr ever heard the saying "the analogy applies at the point at which it applies"? That is to say, there are virtually no analogies that are a perfect 1 to 1, and attacking a shortcoming of the analogy does not make this a sound argument against the point being made. Evil can be used by God to bring about a greater good than could be achieved without it. Given that evil is, first and foremost an affront to God, we have business saying he can't use it if he sees fit, given that all things were created by him and he has authority over all he has created.
Hey thanks! I'm super glad you liked it =D hopefully I'll have time to upload again at some point, I've been busy with school. If you couldnt tell this was right around the time the project teaser was revealed.
Hmm i will keep that in mind. Btw this is my 1st episode in my screw the meta series. In which i do awesome stuffnwhile not giving a turd about what is meta :)
Thanks man, i think my one for all mirror match malzahar is probably better because i actually have commentary for it. For this game i mistakenly removed the sound to edit it but i forgot to put it back hence my 3rd video is the best. I also have an ofamm of nami coming soon.
