I'd argue no, since God wouldn't deface a church that way if he existed!
Since Christianity is ultimately all about Jesus Himself, what's stopping you from following Him if you accept what He's said to be true. If that means you end up being the only Christian on the face of the earth, then so be it. At least you would be aligned with truth.Jesus would turn the other cheek.
Christians do not.
And thats why I hate religion.
First, I have deleted the bible babble bullshit from the book of fiction you posted.
Second, your premise is pure bullshit.
Your premise is that without your belief and fear of your vindictive sky daddy, you would be a complete asshole, rape, rob, murder or what ever you took a fancy to that day? That is some sick fucking thinking, and I am being generous when I use the word thinking.
You "literally" have "backed up" absolutely nothing. You've repeatedly quoted scripture as if it is proof of itself. You're still arguing like a 10 year old with no ability to think logically nor critically.The reason you're completely (and willfully) confused from the posts has nothing to do with me... it's all on you. I'm literally backing up what I write, whether you agree with any of it or not, with the source that the premise of my write-ups comes from: God's holy word.
I pity those so programmed to be the scared little individual incapable of independent thinking... with irrational fear of the invisible boogie man.Since He is our Creator, it is He who decides what is right and what is wrong. Also, since He is our Redeemer for when we do inevitably sin, it is He who decides how to pay the price for any and all bad deeds we have done. Jesus did that for you on the cross before He resurrected.
Great reminder of what prosthelytizing is all about:
I don't know. The topic confuses me. Because people proselytize for all sorts of things, not just religion, as conventionally-defined.
Amen!Great reminder of what prosthelytizing is all about:
Among the differences: proselytizing for non-religious things at least lets you bring evidence and reason into your sales pitch. With religion, all you can really do is claim "it's true because I believe it's true..." which, as the Quora responder said, only works for people who were already inclined to believe.
Is it so cut-and-dried as that? For many non-religious things you may bring _some_ evidence and reason into it, but often, ultimately, if you are arguing for, socialism or libertarianism (according to preference) or the value of 'living by traditional values', or just extholing the aesthetic worth of some bit of art you love, it's unlikely to be a case of converting the other by logically proving your argument.
It's still going to work best on those already inclined to believe. Hence proselytizers for all sorts of things will be careful how they pick their audience. Though on that point our present interlocutor (who I put on ignore almost immediately) seems not to have the best judgement.
There are only 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary counting and those that do not (I always thought that was kinda funny).Are you capable of expressing rational thought without walls of bible babble?
I think the point I've been making about the "style" of posting I have been consistently following here comes down to countering this statement you made above:No, you haven't. All you've done the entire thread is post scripture quotes with some vague statements in-between. You haven't presented or explained much of anything besides copy/pasting scripture. You are not a theologian, and you are not giving insightful perspectives here.
Keep quoting scriptures from a human-written book as if it proves something or means anything to those who see it as nonsense.
And there's more of that factual certainty of what you speak. "What God said"...
YOU may feel and believe and have faith. You can even believe that those whom don't agree with you will go to hell. But it isn't YOUR job to tell them that Jesus is sending them to hell. You don't seem to understand this. THIS is how you continue to act like it is all known and proven fact, and it gets old and annoying quickly.
Nope. You aren't just sharing your opinion. You are proclaiming all kinds of bible bullshit as hard, provable fact (based only on itself and YOUR faith) and threatening others with damnation....then bald-face denying it right afterwards.
I have far more issue with the manner in which YOU present this information than what is said in the bible. And your claim of not trying to convince or convert anyone else? Then shut the fuck up and stop constantly proselytizing to everyone else. You are obvious to everyone but that guy in the mirror.
I was done with this thread until you decided to quote me from three weeks ago.
I know you truly believe what you wrote, but honestly, it literally contradicts itself in how you are trying to label me.I'm sorry, but you can't pretend you have no stamp on this. You came to this forum, you wrote your own words beyond the Bible quotes, you even explained your own methodology behind the quotes. And frankly, your approach is one of the worrying things about religion — encouraging people to abdicate personal responsibility and claim they're merely a vessel when their own desires are clearly at work.
And like I've said, I can't really contend with an entity that, as far as the evidence is concerned, doesn't exist. There's no existential struggle in my mind; if anything, you've helped reinforce my non-religious stance by highlighting how it turns people into unthinking, unquestioning mimics. You'd probably have stood a better chance by staying away altogether.
Maybe not quite so simple, but let's say you're arguing for socialism or libertarianism — you can still point to logic or evidence backing your argument (such as "healthcare shouldn't be dictated by wealth" or "if we believe freedom is good, we should enable as much of it as possible"), even if much of your pitch is determined by passion.
How do you control for confirmation bias? Or do you just leave it in God's hands?I know you truly believe what you wrote, but honestly, it literally contradicts itself in how you are trying to label me.
In the first paragraph I'm supposed to be some bible quoting "vessel" that is also adding his own independent viewpoints in a weakly disguised attempt to get people to see things my way. However, in the second paragraph I'm an "unthinking, unquestioning mimic".
I vote for the third option. I read what someone says, the Lord brings to mind the scriptures or Godly principals he has expressed throughout the bible, and I write a response aligned with His word based on that.
In my life He has proven to me over and over and over that what He has expressed in the bible is the literal definition of truth. It is by believing His truth that it is easy for me to follow His way by faith, and it is by following His way that I am thankful to God that I have eternal life.
~~~~~
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
~~~~~
God wants you to have eternal life as well, which is why He will continue to knock on the door of your heart until you either let Him in, or die in your sins rejecting Him.
~~~~~
Revelation 3:20
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me."
Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
~~~~~
I know you truly believe what you wrote, but honestly, it literally contradicts itself in how you are trying to label me.
In the first paragraph I'm supposed to be some bible quoting "vessel" that is also adding his own independent viewpoints in a weakly disguised attempt to get people to see things my way. However, in the second paragraph I'm an "unthinking, unquestioning mimic".
I vote for the third option. I read what someone says, the Lord brings to mind the scriptures or Godly principals he has expressed throughout the bible, and I write a response aligned with His word based on that.
In my life He has proven to me over and over and over that what He has expressed in the bible is the literal definition of truth. It is by believing His truth that it is easy for me to follow His way by faith, and it is by following His way that I am thankful to God that I have eternal life.
~~~~~
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
~~~~~
God wants you to have eternal life as well, which is why He will continue to knock on the door of your heart until you either let Him in, or die in your sins rejecting Him.
~~~~~
Revelation 3:20
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me."
Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
~~~~~
No, it wasn't, dipshit.Continue to point to me as the author of the positions I've written here and I will continue to point to the fact that it is God who wrote those positions. I mean, I literally include the book, chapter and verse with each bible quotation yet you somehow still seem obsessed with trying to attribute the concepts to me. You are confusing yourself as long as you try to do that....
Truthful? LOL. I'm not truthful because I do not believe your nonsense?...If you were to be more truthful, you'd have to instead say that it makes you uncomfortable when your read what the Lord says in the bible about why unrepentant sinners will be tormented for eternity (because of their choice not to accept His forgiveness for their sins). Of course, then you are debating God Himself, which is a MUCH tougher target to attack and insult.
I've misrepresented nothing. Do you have even a shred of self-awareness, pal?Instead, you focus your fury towards an easier target in me by literally misrepresenting how my posts are constructed. One more time to be clear.... these entries I put up are focused on one thing and one thing only: allowing God to speak for Himself using the words that He had written down for all of us to read. If you disagree, it is with Him and what He is expressing. My personal input on any of this is to be in sync with His word the best I can. If I mess that part up, it's on me. If a post blesses you to humbly listen with your heart to what God is saying to you, all credit goes to Him.
Please don't tell me I'm contradicting myself based on your narrow, rigid interpretation of how Christianity works. I once was a Christian. Now I'm not. My statement is not a tacit acknowledgment that God exists and that I'm just rejecting Him; it's a recognition that, based on evidence, my past beliefs were fabrications. Think of it more as losing belief in the tooth fairy... it's a realization that the fairy never existed in the first place.
As I've said before, you need to snap out of this bubble where you assume every human being accepts Christianity as true and just chooses to act differently. As a non-religious person, I exist wholly outside your bubble; I don't believe I ever had a relationship with Jesus, as there's no real evidence to suggest he was divine (or even that he existed, apart from the sheer volume of stories). Warning me of judgment day means nothing, because there's no evidence to suggest one is coming. You see what I mean? Your worldview is based on premises I have no logical or evidentiary reasons to accept; please don't debate with me as if I accept them.
I never stated that people have to know everything to accept things as being true. In fact, I went out of my way in the last post to acknowledge that when (actual) evidence points in a different direction, it's appropriate to take a another look at things when I said this in that post you quoted of me:You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of science if you think it's a matter of faith.
I don't have to have faith in the Big Bang, evolution or other scientific theories (keep in mind a theory in science is an established model, not a guess or hunch). If I'm uncertain, I can go back to the raw evidence, the peer-reviewed papers, the calculations that are being repeatedly verified by real-world data to this day. And I don't have unquestioning trust that these theories will always hold up. If someone can present testable evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to alter my views. They just haven't, and there's no reason to expect them to any time soon (if at all).
The view is not that humans have knowledge of everything, or even can know everything — including important things. We'll likely never know the true size of the universe, because the limits of light and cosmic expansion prevent that. We might never know what dark matter is, or exactly how life got started on Earth. Instead, the view is that humans should try to pursue the truth as best they can, and to accept that the answers may change.
And here's where you and I, faith and science, differ. When presented with evidence that directly contradicts your views, you either ignore it or try to shoehorn it into those existing views. I can say "I was wrong," "I don't know," or "is this really true?" where you can't. And when I don't know, I can be happy not knowing even as I look for an answer; I don't have to rush to provide an explanation like "God did it." Science isn't a religion, it's a basic stance that one should only act on evidence that survives scrutiny.
So you skipped over Point B as well. Here's the falling tile question again in which I raised my point:This is an elaboration on what I just wrote... but no, it doesn't require any level of faith. For instance, the origins of the universe. I don't blindly trust that the Big Bang happened; I can point to the reams of evidence and verified models indicating that this is likely what happened (the properties of light and gravity, the nature of primordial galaxies, that sort of thing). Will we ever know if the universe flashed into existence from nothing, was always there, or emerged from a multiverse? Probably not, but science also won't make presumptions on that front; science-driven people operate based on what they can observe and verify.
The universe makes sense because there are basic 'laws' of behavior (physics, etc.) that we can observe applying to everything. That doesn't mean they were divinely created, just that there's a consistency that explains why things behave the way they do.
And it's really not hard at all to accept that so many natural things work so well. According to all the evidence, the universe started around 13.8 billion years ago, the Solar System formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and basic life started 4 billion years ago. That is an extremely long amount of time for more complex elements to form, for the conditions needed for life to manifest, for life to evolve from basic bacteria to sentient beings with highly advanced brains and senses. We have evidence of evolution happening even in short human time scales; it's not any stretch to show that larger changes happen on longer timelines.
Yes, I'm quite fine with being the product of natural selection. I don't need to feel like I have a special place or purpose in the universe; in fact, all evidence suggests humans are a largely insignificant speck. But it would be more accurate to say I'm the result of Earth's greatest relay race, as species fight to survive and pass their genes along to generation after generation. That, to me, is extremely beautiful and humbling.
The funny thing is that I see a part of my teenage self in you. I read books claiming "irreducible complexity" (they'd often cite the eye in their flawed reasoning, somewhat like you did) was 'proof' life was the result of divine creation, that the lack of a thick layer of dust on the Moon was 'proof' it was too young to fit scientists' models. And like you, I believed them because they told me not the truth, but what I wanted to hear: that I was a special creation, with an important role to play, and that my life wouldn't be over when my body ceased functioning. I even bought into irrational leaps, like the claim that logic can only exist because of a logical creator (really? What's your evidence for that?).
The thing is, though... I grew out of that phase. I looked at the real science and realized that there's actually an extensive, well-supported trail of evidence showing how the universe and life developed through purely natural processes. We know a great deal about how eyes evolved; we know why the Moon doesn't have much dust; we know that logic is a survival instinct that isn't unique to humans and has been refined over many millions of years. Instead of simply waving your hands and shouting "God must have done it," please look into the science and open your mind to the pursuit of real truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might make you feel.
Did you get 9 or 10 meet Jesus points with that post?Please don't tell me I have a narrow, rigid interpretation of how Christianity works when I'm merely quoting and discussing what God is expressing Himself as being true in His bible.
Again, your claim of having been a Christian is something you invented. That's a personal religion of yours (and others, sadly) that has nothing to do with what God explains in His word. If the bible is the primary and original source for our understanding of Jesus Christ, how can you blatantly conflict with it (as I showed in part in my last post among others in this thread) and then claim that your perspective is the correct one? If what you say is indeed true, that can only mean that the scriptures are false, which would also mean (ironically enough) that you were still never a Christian because what's in the bible would then not be real. I mean, you literally posted this in the quoted text above:
>>> "I don't believe I ever had a relationship with Jesus"
OK. I agree with you. The scriptures from the post I wrote in the link agree with your admission too. Since Christianity is solely about a relationship instead of a religion, then you were never a Christian according to the bible.
I never stated that people have to know everything to accept things as being true. In fact, I went out of my way in the last post to acknowledge that when (actual) evidence points in a different direction, it's appropriate to take a another look at things when I said this in that post you quoted of me:
"I understand what you are saying, especially the part you added about changing one's mind on certain aspects of things as more info becomes available."
Stop with the straw man approach to this discussion, please. Don't tag me with something I never said, then use it as a way to push back on what I really said.
So what did I really say, generally speaking? I specifically asked you specific questions that you chose not to directly answer, and instead you go in a direction about how faith isn't real and there's no proof of this or that, etc. I'm genuinely curious now... why didn't you even to attempt to directly respond to the observations and questions I raised?
To recap, I did not once claim that the statements, verses, and perspectives that I posted in my write up about the existence of everything and how it all has a logical flow to it objectively proves that God is real. I know it doesn't, and that was never my point.
Why? Because as I've said multiple times in several posts (like this one), God expressed how He makes Himself real to every single one of us in His own way. The objective "proof" of a holy, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator of everything (including you) cannot be determined using the limited tools and methods available to His creation. The Lord won't fit in your Petri dish (which actually does serve a valid purpose, as God intended). Instead, there were two things involved with my wall of text you quoted.
Point A - The first is simply a continuation of what I've done throughout this thread: "Here's what God says about that topic in His word."
Point B - The second is to point out objectively how little sense the fundamental pillars of your faith in the alternative views of the existence of everything (including the idea that it all randomly works, given enough time) truly is.
For the first point, I asked you to address the existence of everything coming from nothing in my last post and you skipped past addressing it directly. Here's a snippet to refresh your memory:
>>>>>
"When I say everything, I mean EVERYTHING, including space, time, matter, energy, gravity, physics, light, darkness,... the works. Sure, I'm aware of the big bang theory and its singularity event where space and time didn't even exist before it happened (even though "before" time is an oxymoron ), but broadly speaking, doesn't one have to have faith of some sort to accept any kind of explanation like that?
Essentially, one has to believe that everything came from nothing, whether it is from God or from some galactic event, right? I mean, it's not even possible to replicate absolutely "nothing" today, so there cannot even be experiments done to try to make something from nothing. That's because something exists everywhere since even light/darkness, etc. is "something".
So it takes a kind of faith to think it is possible. The only alternative is faith in the idea that everything existed in some form or another forever, which still requires some belief without seeing. Though God explained Himself in the verse I quoted above (as well as other places of the bible that I will post below), that hasn't stopped me from looking at alternative explanations. Not because I doubt God's word, mind you, but it fascinates me how various write ups try to explain stuff on this topic. In the end though, they never seem to offer an answer to everything coming from nothing."
>>>>>
I've looked through all types of theories because, as I said, it is an extremely interesting subject to me. Whether it's chaotic inflation, a mirror universe, or a cyclic universe, etc. With each one I try to drill down to see what is being said to address how anything (let alone everything) can come from nothing. No one I've seen has tried to answer it directly. In fact, I think I remember Hawkings once griped that question shouldn't be asked a long time ago before he switched his theory of the universe's origins. If you have an answer to share about this, thanks in advance for the info.
So you skipped over Point B as well. Here's the falling tile question again in which I raised my point:
>>>>>
You can't even have an eyeball function the way it does without certain components being present inside of it (rods, cones, iris, cornea, etc.), each of which has its own complex contribution to the puzzle that eventually becomes what it is as a whole. Not to mention how water, blood, nutrients, veins, the brain, life itself, etc, play a role in making it work.
The answer from some is simply that given enough time, these things evolve into what they are. But consider this... if you take a zillion Scrabble pieces, each tile with a letter of the English alphabet, put them in the largest sack ever made and have it hover over an area of flat land high above before releasing them all down to the ground, how many times would this process have to be done before the entire works of Shakespeare are spelled out perfectly?
We are talking about 38 plays and over 150 short and long poems that are completely lined up with perfect spacing and formatting between words, paragraphs, chapters and all content. How long would it take to achieve it from each drop attempt? Millions of years? Billions? A google multiplied by 100 trillion?
Is it impossible? I'd say so, yet isn't the DNA that serves as the blueprint for each person's physical profile far more complex than simple wooden tiles? Doesn't DNA tell the partial story of each unique individual's life in a way that is more special than the invented words of the Bard?
If you were hiking in a valley and saw those tiles on the ground spelling out all of his works as described above, wouldn't you say someone consciencely put it together as such instead of claiming time and randomness did all the work? By comparison, is it more accurate to say that you as a person are not just an evolved, naturally selected accident when you are infinitely more detailed in many, many ways (mentally, emotionally, physically, spiritually) than some printed sonnet or romantic comedy?
>>>>>
In the end, aren't there only two possibilities to how all of the various complex systems in the universe came to be?
~ Option 1: Pure randomness of events over a period of time to eventually produced all of the results of life, the universe and everything that we can readily observe today.
~ Option 2: Non-random influences played a role in how everything became what it is today.
God represents Option 2 (objectively speaking, so do computers, aliens, deities, magic, etc.). But looking at an example like my falling tile question above, isn't Option 1 impossible? I mean, you point to a theory that life came about over a 4 billion year period, but even in all that time it is not close to being possible to drop tiles to the ground in a way that all the works of Shakespeare would appear in perfect order, right? Let's make it even simpler: not even one complete page of a play or poem of his would randomly appear... and that is only about organizing and formatting text into a logical flow! You can't achieve complex order from chaotic randomness.
Up above you mentioned something about the laws of physics (which are far more complex than the text of Shakespeare randomly coming into existence). First we have to go back first to the idea that physics itself came from nothing, and then you have to believe that once it became a thing, the laws developed into what they are to make sense because of what? Pure randomness like the tile drop analogy? That the laws became what they are because enough time allows for everything we have to eventually come into existence?
Seriously, how do complex realities like physics, gravity, light, darkness, sound, energy, matter, space, etc. develop into what they logically are out of pure randomness and time, especially when there is absolutely nothing to develop from to begin with?
That's before you go into other complex realities like the eye, the heart, the water cycle, the miracle of reproduction, and a gajillion other examples. All are more complex than letter tiles forming text, so how can they come about from random chaos no matter how much time is allowed?
Or do you instead think that something in some way, shape or form always existed?
~~~~~
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:1-14
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
Colossians 1:16-17
"For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
Romans 1:18-20
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him."
~~~~~
Please don't tell me I have a narrow, rigid interpretation of how Christianity works when I'm merely quoting and discussing what God is expressing Himself as being true in His bible.
Again, your claim of having been a Christian is something you invented. That's a personal religion of yours (and others, sadly) that has nothing to do with what God explains in His word. If the bible is the primary and original source for our understanding of Jesus Christ, how can you blatantly conflict with it (as I showed in part in my last post among others in this thread) and then claim that your perspective is the correct one? If what you say is indeed true, that can only mean that the scriptures are false, which would also mean (ironically enough) that you were still never a Christian because what's in the bible would then not be real. I mean, you literally posted this in the quoted text above:
>>> "I don't believe I ever had a relationship with Jesus"
OK. I agree with you. The scriptures from the post I wrote in the link agree with your admission too. Since Christianity is solely about a relationship instead of a religion, then you were never a Christian according to the bible.
I never stated that people have to know everything to accept things as being true. In fact, I went out of my way in the last post to acknowledge that when (actual) evidence points in a different direction, it's appropriate to take a another look at things when I said this in that post you quoted of me:
"I understand what you are saying, especially the part you added about changing one's mind on certain aspects of things as more info becomes available."
Stop with the straw man approach to this discussion, please. Don't tag me with something I never said, then use it as a way to push back on what I really said.
So what did I really say, generally speaking? I specifically asked you specific questions that you chose not to directly answer, and instead you go in a direction about how faith isn't real and there's no proof of this or that, etc. I'm genuinely curious now... why didn't you even to attempt to directly respond to the observations and questions I raised?
To recap, I did not once claim that the statements, verses, and perspectives that I posted in my write up about the existence of everything and how it all has a logical flow to it objectively proves that God is real. I know it doesn't, and that was never my point.
Why? Because as I've said multiple times in several posts (like this one), God expressed how He makes Himself real to every single one of us in His own way. The objective "proof" of a holy, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator of everything (including you) cannot be determined using the limited tools and methods available to His creation. The Lord won't fit in your Petri dish (which actually does serve a valid purpose, as God intended). Instead, there were two things involved with my wall of text you quoted.
Point A - The first is simply a continuation of what I've done throughout this thread: "Here's what God says about that topic in His word."
Point B - The second is to point out objectively how little sense the fundamental pillars of your faith in the alternative views of the existence of everything (including the idea that it all randomly works, given enough time) truly is.
For the first point, I asked you to address the existence of everything coming from nothing in my last post and you skipped past addressing it directly. Here's a snippet to refresh your memory:
>>>>>
"When I say everything, I mean EVERYTHING, including space, time, matter, energy, gravity, physics, light, darkness,... the works. Sure, I'm aware of the big bang theory and its singularity event where space and time didn't even exist before it happened (even though "before" time is an oxymoron ), but broadly speaking, doesn't one have to have faith of some sort to accept any kind of explanation like that?
Essentially, one has to believe that everything came from nothing, whether it is from God or from some galactic event, right? I mean, it's not even possible to replicate absolutely "nothing" today, so there cannot even be experiments done to try to make something from nothing. That's because something exists everywhere since even light/darkness, etc. is "something".
So it takes a kind of faith to think it is possible. The only alternative is faith in the idea that everything existed in some form or another forever, which still requires some belief without seeing. Though God explained Himself in the verse I quoted above (as well as other places of the bible that I will post below), that hasn't stopped me from looking at alternative explanations. Not because I doubt God's word, mind you, but it fascinates me how various write ups try to explain stuff on this topic. In the end though, they never seem to offer an answer to everything coming from nothing."
>>>>>
I've looked through all types of theories because, as I said, it is an extremely interesting subject to me. Whether it's chaotic inflation, a mirror universe, or a cyclic universe, etc. With each one I try to drill down to see what is being said to address how anything (let alone everything) can come from nothing. No one I've seen has tried to answer it directly. In fact, I think I remember Hawkings once griped that question shouldn't be asked a long time ago before he switched his theory of the universe's origins. If you have an answer to share about this, thanks in advance for the info.
So you skipped over Point B as well. Here's the falling tile question again in which I raised my point:
>>>>>
You can't even have an eyeball function the way it does without certain components being present inside of it (rods, cones, iris, cornea, etc.), each of which has its own complex contribution to the puzzle that eventually becomes what it is as a whole. Not to mention how water, blood, nutrients, veins, the brain, life itself, etc, play a role in making it work.
The answer from some is simply that given enough time, these things evolve into what they are. But consider this... if you take a zillion Scrabble pieces, each tile with a letter of the English alphabet, put them in the largest sack ever made and have it hover over an area of flat land high above before releasing them all down to the ground, how many times would this process have to be done before the entire works of Shakespeare are spelled out perfectly?
We are talking about 38 plays and over 150 short and long poems that are completely lined up with perfect spacing and formatting between words, paragraphs, chapters and all content. How long would it take to achieve it from each drop attempt? Millions of years? Billions? A google multiplied by 100 trillion?
Is it impossible? I'd say so, yet isn't the DNA that serves as the blueprint for each person's physical profile far more complex than simple wooden tiles? Doesn't DNA tell the partial story of each unique individual's life in a way that is more special than the invented words of the Bard?
If you were hiking in a valley and saw those tiles on the ground spelling out all of his works as described above, wouldn't you say someone consciencely put it together as such instead of claiming time and randomness did all the work? By comparison, is it more accurate to say that you as a person are not just an evolved, naturally selected accident when you are infinitely more detailed in many, many ways (mentally, emotionally, physically, spiritually) than some printed sonnet or romantic comedy?
>>>>>
In the end, aren't there only two possibilities to how all of the various complex systems in the universe came to be?
~ Option 1: Pure randomness of events over a period of time to eventually produced all of the results of life, the universe and everything that we can readily observe today.
~ Option 2: Non-random influences played a role in how everything became what it is today.
God represents Option 2 (objectively speaking, so do computers, aliens, deities, magic, etc.). But looking at an example like my falling tile question above, isn't Option 1 impossible? I mean, you point to a theory that life came about over a 4 billion year period, but even in all that time it is not close to being possible to drop tiles to the ground in a way that all the works of Shakespeare would appear in perfect order, right? Let's make it even simpler: not even one complete page of a play or poem of his would randomly appear... and that is only about organizing and formatting text into a logical flow! You can't achieve complex order from chaotic randomness.
Up above you mentioned something about the laws of physics (which are far more complex than the text of Shakespeare randomly coming into existence). First we have to go back first to the idea that physics itself came from nothing, and then you have to believe that once it became a thing, the laws developed into what they are to make sense because of what? Pure randomness like the tile drop analogy? That the laws became what they are because enough time allows for everything we have to eventually come into existence?
Seriously, how do complex realities like physics, gravity, light, darkness, sound, energy, matter, space, etc. develop into what they logically are out of pure randomness and time, especially when there is absolutely nothing to develop from to begin with?
That's before you go into other complex realities like the eye, the heart, the water cycle, the miracle of reproduction, and a gajillion other examples. All are more complex than letter tiles forming text, so how can they come about from random chaos no matter how much time is allowed?
Or do you instead think that something in some way, shape or form always existed?
~~~~~
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:1-14
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
Colossians 1:16-17
"For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
Romans 1:18-20
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him."
~~~~~