• Non-Trinitarians RSS Feed

    by Published on 10-19-2014 01:29 PM     Number of Views: 1480 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist

    Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell mused, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." But the question of what or who caused God is misguided.

    First, science supports the notion that the universe had a beginning and that something independent of the universe brought it into being. The well-accepted scientific belief in the universe's origination and expansion and the second law of thermodynamics (energy tends to spread out) support the universe's absolute beginning from nothing (from whence there was nothing but God). This sounds remarkably like Genesis 1.1! The chances of a thing's popping into being from literally nothing (non-existence, all by itself) are exactly zero. Being cannot come from nonbeing; there's no potential for this. Even skeptic David Hume called this "absurd" - a scientific (real) impossibility.

    Second, believers reject the claim "Everything that exists has a cause" and affirm "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." To say "Everything needs a cause" would necessarily exclude an uncaused God. This is "question begging" (assuming what needs to be proved). It's like presuming that since all reality is physical (which can't be demonstrated), a nonphysical God cannot exist.

    Third, why think everything needs a cause, since an uncaused entity is logical and intelligible? Through the centuries, many believed that the universe didn't need a cause; it was self-existent. They thought a beginningless/uncaused universe wasn't illogical or impossible. But now that contemporary cosmology points to the universe's beginning and an external cause, skeptics insist everything (in nature) needs a cause after all!

    Fourth, a good number of uncaused things do exist. Logical laws are real; we can't think coherently without using them (e.g., the law of identity, X = X, tells you: "This book is this book"). Moral laws or virtues (love, justice) are real. But none of these began to exist. They are eternal and uncaused (being in God's mind).

    Fifth, the question "Who made God?" commits the category fallacy. To say that all things, even God, must be caused is incoherent - like the question "How does the color green taste?" Why fault God for being uncaused? When we rephrase the question to say, "What caused the self-existent, uncaused God, who is by definition unmade, to exist?" the answer is obvious.
    by Published on 08-19-2014 06:32 PM     Number of Views: 1474 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist

    An atheist once said to me that since nothingness does not exist it has no rules, so there are no rules preventing non-existence from creating or causing something to happen. The flaw in that thinking is that though it is true nothingness has no rules, there is nothing for it to prevent since there is just nothing, so remains non-existence always non-existent. You can be confident in saying nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.

    Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything. It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.

    The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.

    Nothingness is simply non-existence, and giving rules or no rules to it is a false approach because it has neither rule nor no rules. Having no rules is itself a rule. So you can't have nothingness with a rule of no rules since non-existence has no rules. We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.

    The same atheist also said to me that the mechanics of nothingness need to be explained because nothingness has no mechanics. If non-existence has no mechanics then it would be illogical to insist upon knowing the non-existent mechanics of nothingness. That would be like asking what is the color of one mile?

    This little exercise, if nothing else, shows the desperation of atheists by their twists and turns, but still remain delusional. Let me reiterate we have trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something from nothing. The atheist is hostile to God so he tries to circumvent this evidence with his goofiness.
    by Published on 07-03-2014 03:20 PM     Number of Views: 1416 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist

    Of course, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins are going to Hell because they are too selfish, unwilling to repent to the cross as helpless sinners to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior. They are sinners, sin leads to death and the second death which is an eternal separation from God. Free will is not truly free if you don't have this free choice.

    Krauss and Dawkins are engorged in their selfish, self-righteous, self-centered and sin nature. But God can have no fellowship with such people because God is without selfishness and without sin. Scientifically, we know sin leads to death sooner than otherwise. If you overly drink and smoke, and deceive people with your voice box, you will get, for example, cancer in your esophagus, for sin is unhealthy for you not just others you sin against. Hence, what happened to Christopher Hitchens. Science proves these selfish sinful acts are unhealthy for you. Science makes the connection between these sins, illness, disease, death, disassociation from life and the saving perfect life of Jesus.

    Science proves God exists, for that which does not exist can't cause anything since it doesn't exist, and infinite regress is impossible, because if there was, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on forever never reaching this point. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom we call God.

    And we know only one religion -- the way to God --, is true, for only one proves itself to be true by the Minimal Facts Approach and eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, for which there is no naturalistic explanation, thus proving scientifically Jesus is God who raised Himself the 3rd day. All the common theories put forth the past 2000 years fail on their heads as impossible by showing their fallacious reasoning.
    by Published on 03-22-2014 03:51 PM     Number of Views: 2215 
    1. Categories:
    2. Hell,
    3. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist,
    4. Islam, Muslim, Koran

    I don't understand how anyone could be an atheist other than total mindless belligerent obstinacy, because obviously, that which does not exist can't cause anything so the universe can't come from nothing. We only have evidence for causation from something. Some atheists claim outside the universe doesn't abide in the cause and effect inside of the universe, but if that were true then the universe would never come into existence. Of course God can created from outside of time and space since God would transcend time and space. People say God can't create without time. Sure He can. He creates timelessly.

    The only other approach I have ever seen atheists attempt is to claim the universe always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effects; but of course, that's false, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. It gets even doubly worse for the atheist, because if a past eternity was true, then you should never have existed because that past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point. Therefore, infinite regress is a man made delusion.

    I guess I should say why I believe Jesus is God over other faiths. The reason I believe this is because I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Group hallucinations are medically impossible - people never hallucinate the same thing. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so the Apostles truly believed it; that is, they did not fraudulently make up their eyewitness testimony. Swoon theory fails because Jesus wouldn't convince anyone He is the risen Messiah all tattered and torn, scourged down the bone, holes in His feet and hands and unable to walk on the 3rd day. Legends theory fails because the Apostles believed it from the beginning, set up the first churches on the resurrection appearances of Jesus, and even Paul who was converted about 2 years after the cross said he spent 15 days with Peter, with James, and with John who were key eyewitnesses. Their faith goes right back to the cross. I know the movie "The Enemy" (2014) might convince someone Jesus had a twin brother, but his character and nature couldn't fool the Apostles who had spent 3 years with Jesus.

    I believe a sinner is eternally separated from God because God can't have fellowship with sin. Therefore, God the Son mercifully enters His creation to pay the penalty and ransom for sin so that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but has everlasting life. Those who do not receive what Jesus did for them to redeem them back to Him shall perish in a state of eternal conscious separation from God. The closest thing I can think of what Hell will be like for Muslims, Atheists, JW's, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, other Gnostics, Deists and Agnostics, etc. is simply jail. We throw people in jail for life so they can't harm others so for those who reject Jesus who He truly is, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, must eternally be separated from those God loves, His elect, sons and daughters, namely Christians and Saints from the OT. That would be very unloving of God to allow someone who rejects and despises God to be able to interact with a person who is regenerated, has the Holy Spirit indwelling and eternal blessings, for there is no sin in the New City and New Earth.

    Since there is no resurrection accounts (notice you are unable to find any sources from antiquity) except for Jesus claiming to be God, He is the One and Only. For the atonement to be authentic, the Atoner must come in our likeness - the likeness of flesh - and that's what Jesus does as the perfect sacrifice for sins. When Jesus returns to reign on earth for 1000 years as the Son of Man, He will defeat the evil [atheist, etc.] nations, and His overcomer believers will reign with Him on earth over the nations for 1000 years before the New City and New Earth commence eternity future.

    That's why I believe what I believe since I don't know how disprove it. And there can be no greater proof. I can't even lose salvation, because I gave my life to the God who keeps: those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). Just ask yourself what proof could be better, and you will come up empty handed. You might claim you would believe if Jesus came before you now, but that contradicts His claim when He returns everyone will know it. Why would you even believe it who selfishly comes before you and not others. Why does the universe center around you? I like that Jesus doesn't cater to your fleshly demands.
    by Published on 01-05-2014 08:33 PM     Number of Views: 1916 
    1. Categories:
    2. Hell,
    3. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist,
    4. Islam, Muslim, Koran

    I don't think we should believe things without some sort of support or evidence for it. For example, I don't think we should be atheist or agnostic because there is nothing to support those ideas, but we do have evidence for God and evidence for the Christian God as follows as I see it.

    I know that non-existence can't cause anything to come into being because it doesn't exist. That should be enough, but I also have another reason which is we see cause and effect in nature over and over, time and again, with no hard evidence of something from nothing without assuming it. Therefore, this is a solid that nature ALWAYS needs a cause whether it be the first event of nature or anywhere in between. You don't need to know all things to know if this is true, just enough evidence is all you need which is what we have. Besides, if you had to know all things, you are claiming you would have to be God "all-knowing" (omniscient) to know for sure, but that is self-contradictory, because obviously you are not God, and do you remember creating the universe? How forgetful of you being all-knowing! Funny.

    The only other thing that one can try to fathom to fight off God is to say nature always existed, but that has two insurmountable serious flaws which are:

    1) if nature always existed in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then by that very definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. And...

    2) you should never have existed because an alleged past eternity would continue to go on forever in the past so as to never reach this point.

    So by this overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, we can be certain nature needs a cause outside of itself, that is, outside of time and space, being uncreated. And that is what we are talking about the uncreated when we speak of God.

    Not only is God uncreated, always existed, but He can't be below us for the Creator is always greater than the created. Therefore, since we are personal, accessible, have a mind and self-consciousness, God must have all these attributes too. Anything less is debasing God for your own twisted and selfish thoughts.

    There is only 3 faiths that are pervasive enough (accessible enough around the globe) to meet the necessary criteria worth considering: Islam, Hinduism, Christianity. All other faiths or beliefs or world-views or ideas fail to meet this accessibility law as they have so few adherents. If in a billion years another religion rises up to be popular it can be included in the mix to compare to, but for now there are only three that make up the majority of people.

    But we know Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus never died on the cross or even went to the cross without anything support said claim in your attempt to overturn the plethora of evidence and corroborating reports we have from the first century. If you make blind claims like that then you can make blind claims about anything and start a new religion anytime anywhere, making the whole thing up. But that's not too bright!

    Now Hinduism is false too, because its god is said to be Amoral which is below the morality of humans. And sin is never effectively addressed if you get an endless number of chances to become a chicken then come back as a human to change your bad behavior. How can a chicken hold the moral burden and responsibility of human being to become a human again? That would be too much for the chicken to bear. Do we as humans pin our bad conduct on an ants? I know some atheists do but that is just goofy!

    You really don't need more than this lifetime to make the decision. As a practical matter, notice virtually nobody has come to the cross as helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior past the age of 40, indicating that this lifetime is more than enough time to decide whether you want to be with God and the Lamb Christ Jesus in the New City and New Earth or to be eternally separated from the love of God and His presence. Ceasing to exist is not an option because God made us in His image which can never cease to exist. If God allowed annihilation it would debase His creation to something lesser and destroy the true essence of free will each of us are bestowed with. So claiming you will be annihilated so that it doesn't matter if you kill yourself or a billion people is morally retarded and imbecilic! The consequence of your attitude is you will burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity. This fire is no natural fire that eventually burns out. It is a metaphorical fire using figurative language to depict God's judgment on you.

    I should also add that Islam and Hinduism are both works based faiths which is an impossibility, because how can a sinner ever bridge the gap between himself and an infinitely great God. Impossible! Only in Christianity do you have the correct starting point by being born-again "taking the water of life freely" (Rev. 22.17), giving a free will offering like Abel did and not of your works like Cain did. By doing so God makes you acceptable to Him to begin fellowship with. From this starting point you can begin to overcome for real the sin of your body and selfishness of your soul, because you would have been totally forgiven and died with Christ on the cross to your old man, giving you power over sin and self. Satan can't operate through that which is dead (lost communication), so all the Christian needs to do is appropriate this new life as a new creation of God by trusting in God's word (66 books of the Bible) completely. The old creation, all we inherit from Adam, has died on the cross. Some Christians realize this. Others are foggy about it so they need to appreciate it to appropriate its power.

    That's why I am a Christian, once saved always saved, for those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). Calvinists and Roman Catholics, about 2 billion in total, are false Christians so they are going to Hell too along with Atheists, Agnostics (Bible says if you are not for Christ, you're against Him), Pentecostals (as many as 500 million), Muslims (over 1 billion), Hindus and Buddhists (over 1 billion), and Atheists/Agnostics (over 1 billion). Calvinists claim you are irresistibly made to be saved; whereas Roman Catholics claim you can lose salvation tomorrow once saved. Both groups are living a lie.

    There is another way which is God's way (OSAS Arminian): giving your life to the God, Christ Jesus, who keeps, accepting you could not keep yourself saved. Give your life to the God who keeps and never lets you go to be kept. Only in Christianity! That is true love. God predestinates by foreknowing your free choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. Remonstrants were wrong because they like the RCC teach you can lose salvation once saved.

    Praise the Lord for this discernment!
    by Published on 07-23-2013 10:23 PM     Number of Views: 3830 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist

    ​Michio,

    I watched your video interview here,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCPKlkHMLIs

    Are you aware according to the Bible Michio that you are going to Hell, because Jesus said He is God and proved it, yet you refuse to come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior?

    The argument you gave was you don't accept the God who smited the Philistines, so in fact, what you are doing Michio is supporting child sacrifices which is evil even if you are doing it unknowingly through ignorance by blaming God for smiting the Philistines. Don't you ask why God smites rather than not? Or is your hostility to God so great that you shut your mind down at that point assuming you won your argument without thinking past two steps of your own thinking?

    It's like Oprah Winfrey who also rejects God of the Bible because she said she could never accept a jealous God. Yet God is jealous like a mother for her own children for their attention and love. That is the meaning behind a jealous God who loves His own.

    Your other issue is why are their poor and rich nations? You said because of science not the Koran. Actually the Koran is why Muslim countries are quite poor in terms of GDP to the rest of the world, because the Koran is immoral. Six centuries later it claimed Jesus never even went to the cross with no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. An immoral life leads to poverty or at the very least falling far below one's potential. If you don't work, you don't eat.

    But having a conscience in Christ by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the truth that shall set you free, frees you of bondage under false religion as well as the religion of being antichrist. Michio Kaku is antichrist. Science would not exist without God. God gives science. To forsake science would be to forsake God's good pleasure. But the Bible also speaks about a science so falsely called. This would be false science or misused science like we see in the case of false blind studies supporting a corporation's drug they are trying to get market.

    Another false type of science is to prepare for aliens which is absurd since there are no aliens. They don't exist. Over 800 variables are required for life to exist on another planet. There are no enough planets in the universe for that to be possible. Unless your appreciate this is the one and only inhabited planet, you will be less careful with it. It is impossible for humans to travel to another solar system. It would take thousands of years. Again, another vain effort by mankind wasting valuable resources based on false precepts not of God.

    Michio then explains why Nazis or Russians aren't running the world today. It's because they were defeated, he says. Yes, that is true, but that is not the ultimate reason. The ultimate reason is God's mercy and grace to overcome the vile nature of evil regimes. God's righteousness wins the day through the Allied countries. Not giving honor to the One True God puts Michio in a very precarious position while speaking accolades of human progress, he forgets the Enabler of progress. Pretentious to say the least!

    Michio's main point at the end of the day is nature creates laws of physics so we should honor nature not God. But he fails to ask the question what caused nature? Obviously, it doesn't happen all by itself nor did it always exist. Again, it needs the Enabler God of the Bible. Without giving honor, respect and worship where it is due, you are self-exalting yourself and warping some reality; however subtle you may be doing so, self is always at the center.

    I am here to help you Michio, but you have to reach out half way to me. God does not force his love on anyone. I know you are busy in speaking engagements, but that's just your self-righteous flesh hard at work, remaining unsaved, bound for perdition. How about getting saved first then going on a speaking engagement and letting the Holy Spirit guide your life instead of your selfish will. Every issue you have with God of the Bible, I can show you the truth of your mistaken assumptions.
    by Published on 04-20-2012 06:18 PM     Number of Views: 1930 
    1. Categories:
    2. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist



    I just wanted you to understand how a logical person understands the big picture. Does God exist or not?

    I know God exists because the universe can't come from nothing since that which does not exist can't cause anything, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated whom we call God. Later we can figure out who or what God is, but for now we know the uncreated Creator does indeed exist.

    Nor can there exist an eternity of the past of cause and effects because you would have come into existence before now having had an eternity to do so. What's even more contradictory with the assumption of a past eternity is that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have never come into existence because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity so as to never reach this point. The concept of a past eternity is not only self-contradictory but just plain wrong.

    Who is God? I believe God would be accessible. To be accessible would only include the major religions that spread throughout the globe: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism. Just three choices. I deem Hinduism to be false because you aren't coming back as a frog if you are not a good prince. That's just silly. And Brahma is said to be amoral. How can God have standards below our own by being amoral? Islam is proven false in one fell swoop because it has no evidence six centuries later from a guy in a cave who self-declared Jesus never died on the cross. The burden is on him to try to overturn the historical record. So without knowing anything else we know Jesus is God.

    For those who want to even deny He exists, we can say Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. He has more sources written about him within 150 years of his death than any ten figures combined from antiquity. To know that He did indeed resurrect Himself we simply observe that there has never been and never will be a naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disciples' eyewitness testimony.

    We are personal and God, of course, can't have standards below our own so God must be personal. What is the most personal thing God can do for us? To literally enter His creation and pay for the sins that belong to us for forgiveness of sins, regeneration of the spirit and to give eternal life. Accessible and personal are virtues characteristic of a God who has a mind, and a mind is needed to create a mind. A mind can not come from dust alone, but must also have a soul to produce self-consciousness.

    Christ Jesus, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, will also return during Daniel's final seven, based on the Total Lunar Tetrads, that is, the signs in the heavens according to Joel 2.31 and Rev. 6.12 before the Tribulation starts. The 2,520 days (7x360) would be from Feast of Trumpets Sept. 14, 2015 to Tisha B'Av Aug. 7, 2022. First rapture is according to readiness (Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10) on the first date. The latter date Jesus steps down on the mount of olives.

    It really is that simple so we are all without excuse.

    Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast