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
A Coy and Aloof Person is Subjective
The subjectivity of a person can be detected in the smallest of things, for it is a natural habit. If you have learned the essential lesson of having your subjectivity broken, you will easily discern it in many small details of life. A subjective person is that way in all things. He loves to control people; he delights in being opinionated; he takes pleasure in giving orders. He knows what to do in every situation and circumstance. When a young person steps out to serve the Lord, put him together with a few other people, and soon you will see whether or not he is subjective. If he is alone in one place, you are not apt to find out. But when two people are put together, you see at once that the subjective person will try to dominate the other. He will insist on eating certain things, wearing clothing in a certain way, and sleeping at a certain hour. He is omniscient and omnipotent. Put two sisters in one room, and you will discern which sister, if either, is subjective. Put two subjective people together, and they will come to an impasse. One such person may live peacefully, but two such people cannot live on together.
This does not mean, however, that hereafter we should not say anything. When there is difficulty in the work or a problem with people, we cannot be unfaithful by remaining aloof. What we mean is that after we have spoken, we will not force them to adhere. If they do not listen after we have spoken, we will not feel hurt. So precious and dear to themselves are the opinions of some people that they are hurt if they are not listened to. Such is the feeling of subjective people. Yet, for the sake of faithfulness, we have to speak out. To speak out, though, is not to be construed as signifying that the person doing the speaking is a busybody or that he has a talkative temperament. But for those who are subjective, it is wrong to speak without first having been taught. God has not appointed us to be masters of all. Some have the habit of always speaking or teaching in every situation. This plainly indicates that one is a subjective person.
Unless his kind of temperament is broken, he is not fit to work for God. A subjective person is not necessarily a faithful person. One who is faithful speaks only when it is needed and not because he likes to speak or has the lust for talking. He speaks in order to rescue people from error. If he is rejected, he is not distressed since
I am glad you couldn't show any misrepresentation so you must be misrepresenting. Your wishful thinking there is no Creator is not a valid argument. Indeed, Krauss is brainless to think something can come from nothing. Familiarize yourself with the argument in the link then tackle my response. Suffice it to say that which does not exist still can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Non-existence will never split into anything for that which doesn't exist can't split. A cause is required from something. Praise God we have proof of God, because infinite regress is impossible otherwise you would have already happened having had an alleged eternity to do so; so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. You and Krauss are the bad people bound for Hell because you refuse God's saving grace. You can't cease to exist since you're made in God's image; His image never ceases to exist. There is no rest day or night for those going to Hell. You're without excuse because Jesus is proven to be God by the resurrection appearances for which there is no viable naturalistic explanation which there ought to be one if your theory is true. For example, group hallucinations and swoon theory fail. And people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. So the Apostles truly believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
In your sin nature you prefer to remain selfish, independent, disobedient and self-centered which eternally separates yourself from God because God can have no fellowship with a sinner. You have chosen to eternally separate yourself from God so you are most certainly going to Hell. Why complain about it since that is what you want? Don't be doubleminded about it. This would be punishment for Christians to go with you to Hell for we love God, but when you are in Hell you will be right at home where you want to be where you belong, locking yourself in Hell from the inside. Whatever punishment that entails, you would prefer that than to be showered with the love of God in a place of perfect sinlessness, holiness and immaculate dwelling. According to you it would be a punishment to be with God which is of course demented for God is maximally great! Who can exceed God's greatness? It certainly would be punishment for believers to have you in our presence for eternity future when you despise God. There are no tortured souls in the New City and New Earth in eternity future.
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.
"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8.24).
To die in your sins is to remain unforgiven and go to Hell. Who is He? Lets come back to that question in a bit.
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2.23).
To not have the Father by denying the Son of God such a person will go to Hell.
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6.40).
Those who don't believe the Son do not receive everlasting life but everlasting judgment or perdition in Hell to be eternally separated from God. Believing in a false Christ is not the Son of God so God would not save such a person.
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3.36).
The wrath of God is on those who don't receive the Son who He truly is.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14.6).
Who is Jesus?
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4.12).
If Jesus is only a man or only an angel, how can He be the only way?
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6.23).
How can merely a created being give eternal life? A created being was not eternally existing so how can that which is not eternal give eternality? This is where the Trinity comes in. The Trinity teaches not just the Father but the Son also are eternal and have the power to give eternal life.
Back to John 8.24. So who is He that we need to believe in to be saved?
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Is. 43.10).
Jesus is saying "I am He" (John 8.24). Yahweh God says, "I am
Popular hipster Hillsong preacher Carl Lentz is not born-again. Therefore, he is going to Hell. When asked why he has no comment about homosexuality, lesbianism and gay marriage he had no comment.
But we all know the OT and NT speak against it and that Jesus said in Matt. 12.30, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
If you are not willing to speak with Jesus against it, Jesus will deny you before the Father in heaven, thus proving, Carl Lentz is not a Christian.
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 24.32).
Jesus was anti-gay, anti-homosexual and anti-lesbian.
When Jesus spoke about the proper relationship for men and women, He meant it.
Paul said, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (Rom. 1.26,27).
Imagine in the night clubs of Carl Lentz preaching what response he would get if he spoke like Paul did.
The penalty in the OT was death for being a fag or lesbo. The fulfillment of those laws in Christ in the NT sense, under the grace of our Lord Jesus, is not to kill such souls but certainly speak up against it that the sentence is the second death an eternal separation from God.
Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10.6-9). Let no man claim God has joined man with man or woman with woman!
By the way in the Bible there is no such thing as the Pastoral System of one preacher up front on a pedestal at a podium. Fellowship took place in homes usually with a few believers gathered reading and studying the Scriptures together and discussing passages peacefully, calmly, quietly and in an emotionally stable fashion.
If we had more Christians doing this instead
How should you respond to someone who claims to accept the precious blood of Jesus for forgiveness of sins, that He died on the cross for the sins of the world to give us the free choice, to receive eternal life, and even accepts Jesus is God the Son, but they refuse to accept what Jesus said in John 3.16, because they are unwilling to accept close family members are unsaved and going to Hell who do not accept Jesus as Lord?
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3.16).
Jesus said only those who believe will not perish. So when someone says they are not convinced another person is going to Hell for rejecting Christ, they are denying what Jesus said in John 3.16. They worship a false Christ, certainly not God of the Bible. This is confirmed elsewhere.
"He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12.30). So if you are not for the Jesus who sends people to Hell who deny Him then you yourself are going to Hell because you preach a universalist Jesus or pseudo-universalist Jesus. Pleading ignorance is not being for Jesus, but for the way the world acts.
Similarly Matt. 10.32,33 reveals the same pretentious condition. If you are unwilling to confess who the Lord Jesus truly is, God in the likeness of flesh, who will send people to Hell for denying who He truly is, surely you will go to Hell.
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 10.32,33).
A pseudo-universalist or pantheist who says it is not for him to decide is confusing what God decides (which He discloses in the Word of God) with the false Christian who claims to be a Christian when he says maybe a person is still saved who rejects Jesus. This makes a mockery of the cross of salvation. You should be agreeing with what God decides not pleading ignorance.
You need to be firm with such people and allow God's righteous indignation to be expressed towards such neglect of the gospel of God's saving grace.
There is another group of people that are not saved, those who preach the gospel only once every 10 years, if that, or who like to use the phrase "I pick my battles" to justify their being