Elevator - Good God? - David Asscherick // thefinalmovement.com
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- "If the God is so good, then why is the world so bad?". "If God is a God of Love then why does He allow me to suffer?". Perhaps you ask yourself these sorts of questions. In this video David Asscherick examines from the Bible why we are all surrounded by so much sin, sickness and suffering.
Produced by The Final Movement
Camera Operators: Jared Vincent, Kent Marcus, Nick Lindsay
Sound Recordist: Kyle Vincent
DOP: Kent Marcus
Editors: Kent Marcus, Kyle Vincent
Music: "Prologue" and "Battdambang" by Tony Anderson (tony@unearthedpictures.com)
Praise God
I love this message 2
amazing explanation! praise God!
I love this message
Amen brother David
praise God
Darkness is the absence of light!
Can you explain more about the “responsibility” part of that relationship please?
Who does The power of Israel loves?
Jesus said, as He prayed to the Father, that He thanked Him (the Father) for revealing His love to those considered to be "unwise" to this world. On the other hand, the so-called "wise" of this world system, according to Jesus, were ( and are) considered by the Father as akin to those rebells in the days of Noah. "As in the days of Noah", so it will be like right before the return of Christ. Oppose the Investigative Judgement of SDA and rediscover the truth of prophecy.
Stop deceiving people David read your bible.
The principles of matter are the fundamental reason every natural thing occurs. Of these principals are the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics define matter. Under these laws, it is clear that no eternal system is possible. No system can exist forever, and all systems are unstable because of the net increase of entropy. Since matter is defined by this principle, you simply cannot remove it without undermining our concepts of "events" , "objects" , and "cause and effect." This is where Christianity runs into problems. The fundamental reason all processes occur is entropy. The fundamental reason all systems decay is entropy. We live and die for because of the fundamental principle that defines our existence in the first place. There simply could never have been a time where human beings were immortal. Under the physical laws that define our universe, the principles that define what it means to have a logically predictable universe, an eternal and material being is not possible. You cannot blame a supernatural enemy for death, because a universe without death does not make logical sense and goes against the very definition of matter.
mouseinmyhelmet 2 pointes.. and I will try to be brief. The very existence of life defies the very fabric of entropy. If all energy and all matter are tending towards disorder, then HOW does a semipermeable membrane spontaneously and coincidentally coalesce around nitrogenous bases (the cell). The event stands in SHARP contradiction to entropy. And even more dastardly, that first primordial, simple cell, gradual became increasingly organized as it collected elements in their high entropic form and organized them into: bacteria -> fish -> frog -> mammal -> humans.. Such an feat would Require a God.
2nd point: much shorter. The christian belief is that God stands outside of space time and has created this universe with all the thermodynamic laws. He stands removed from those limitations the same way a software architect is not bound to the limitations he writes into a program. He can always "re-code" a particular aspect, even if for a short time ... aka miracles.
dmoise90
Your argument is flawed because of two very common misconceptions. I would never use this as an actual justification for what I am about to explain, but I am a physics student who has studied this material recently and fairly in depth. I would never expect you to trust what I am saying for that reason, but I want to point it out so that you don't assume that I am pulling this out of my bum.
Entropy is not the same thing as disorder, this is a very common misconception. Entropy very often results in disorder, but there are many cases in which disorder does not increase and entropy does. Entropy is a measure of the number of micro-states a system can exist in, but more practically and in the case of an open system, its a good measure for the amount of energy that has left the system. Energy is also a pretty misunderstood concept (for good reason, since you really can't understand it without deriving the mathematics for yourself) so I won't talk about that too much. But I would advise you to research the topic of energy, if only for the fact that it is very interesting and beautiful. The point in me saying this is that your entire argument against the existence of self replicating chemical systems because they are highly ordered is flawed, because it is totally reasonable to assume that entropy did in fact increase during every generation throughout the evolutionary process. Entropy definitely would have increased during abiogenisis (however that happened), during the formation of the cell membrane, the gradual evolution of DNA, all of it. Yes, all of those things require an ordered system to come from a less ordered system, and yes that is somewhat counter-intuitive. But current models for how this might have happened do not contradict the laws of thermodynamics, because such principles were not created to match our intuition. In fact, a great deal of physics contradicts human intuition. You cannot argue that something isn't true because it doesn't make sense to us humans, because many things that are testable and verified by experiment are counter-intuitive.
I would also like to point out, as a side note, that an inconsistency in our understanding of the universe does not necessitate the existence of a god. Even if life was a contradiction to thermodynamics (which it definitely isn't), that wouldn't mean anything besides just that. You don't get to jump to conclusions like that just because it's comfortable for you. If we don't have the answer, we don't have the answer.
Your second point makes an incorrect assumption about the laws of nature. The universe is not "governed" by the laws scientists invent. Objects with mass do not obey Newton's laws of motion, electrons in a circuit do not obey Kirchhoff's laws, and a solenoid does not obey Gauss' law. The laws of nature are descriptions. It is better said that the laws of nature DEFINE nature. Newton's theory of motion APPLIES to objects with mass and Einstein's theory of relativity APPLIES to objects with energy. At least, those laws and models are the best understanding we have so far. They are also very well established, and so far have proved very difficult if at all possible to prove incorrect (believe me, every scientists who has ever wanted to become famous has tried). Not only that, but it becomes fascinatingly difficult to imagine or even begin to talk about reality without some of the more fundamental laws applying. That isn't to say that a reality doesn't exist that follows different patterns and relationships, but its not possible to talk about without contradicting yourself. You actually can't even begin to imagine about a reality in which our laws of thermodynamics do not apply, because such a thing would contradict the axiom of cause and effect. That isn't to say that a reality such as this couldn't exist, but you just couldn't describe it. I mean, just try it. You can't do it. This is where christian theologians and apologists lose footing. Talking about a being that exists outside of space and time and is unbounded by our physical laws is to bring up something that is impossible to talk about. Its very difficult, as someone who has come to understand these principle fairly in depth, to take seriously any claims made about such a being as this. Especially when those claims are based on ancient folk lore. At its best, Christian theology is here-say. The authors of the bible don't hide this, it is well known and understood that this information was written by humans. And I don't trust humans that don't justify their claims with reproducible experiments and verifiable observations. In case this offends you, I should point out that I don't believe my view makes me smarter than you. I used to be christian myself, and I certainly wouldn't claim that I became more intelligent when I gave up my religion. This is just the way I think about it. I am merely pointing out the incorrect assumptions in your arguments solely for the sake of discussion.
you could have said that in less words.. Im in grad school and have done a fair amount of research (not as much as a physics student) into these matters..
I understand that the laws are nature.. and that they are discovered, not created.. but i still affirm that those laws have an author.
That said.. even when defining entropy as "the number of micro-states a system can exist in" it still stands that Phosphorous, Oxygen, Carbon, and Hydrogen have infinitely more micro-states when they are not organized in a semi-permeable membrane.
The elements that make up life forms have INFINITELY more micro-states after that life form has passed away and the body rots. Life is unfathomably improbable when left to the laws of thermodynamics.. not saying its impossible.. but that the chances are so small that its virtually impossible. and as life "becomes" more complex the more improbably (and virtually impossible) it really is
Christianity is much more than folk lore. Prophecy, Archaeology, and the Altruistic, philanthropic, self sacrificing characters that Christ inspires throughout the world is very tangible.
Faith should not be presented as ludicrous, especially because non-thiest exhibit faith in their many unprovable theories. We can drop apples all day to experiment and calculate gravity.. but the big bang, macro-evolution (from one kind of animal to another eg, fish to land animal).. String theory, 10 dimensions? .. heat death, dark energy. and on and on.
These are the result of starting from a non-theistic vantage point. which i have actually done.. Its very rational and does appeal to logic.. but its still missing something .. many things actually.. But i challenge you to try a different vantage point ..Try Christianity
dmoise90 Sigh, ok I will try to write less. But you keep bringing up new points and its sort of impossible to respond to everything you say without writing a lot. I will start by saying that, like most people born in the USA, I was actually raised Christian. No, I didn't leave the church because of a bad experience. I actually had a great childhood and my church community is great. I also went to a christian high school where I was required to learn several different versions of the christian doctrine. The reason I left the church is sort of complicated and has less to do with the doctrine itself and more to do with the whole philosophy surrounding the idea of faith in general. I am pretty open to having a discussion on this matter and I really like hearing different viewpoints. But you don't want to write that much so I will just talk about what we were originally talking about.
I really don't know how to put this any other way, but your understanding of thermodynamics is simply wrong. This is the problem with studying this material outside of a classroom setting. When you take a class, the professor actually proves it too you from the ground up (assuming you are taking a math based class). When you understand exactly why these concepts exist and how they work, its less likely that you will get something wrong. It is clear to me that you did not have the opportunity to study this in a math based classroom setting, because even though you say you studied this material a fair amount you are still falling for classic pitfalls and rookie mistakes. You say that there is no possible process that could produce a highly ordered system, but this is simply not true. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase in an ISOLATED SYSTEM. This is not true in an open system, but that doesn't make entropy any less relevant. What entropy means in the context of an open system has to do with mechanical efficiency. You see, when a system interacts with its environment it must inevitably lose energy. This energy gets dispersed and increases the entropy of the universe (isolated system). Note that this is true even in the case where the total entropy of an open system decreases. When ice melts, it transfers energy into the environment and increases the entropy of the universe, while the entropy of the water decreases as it crystallizes. The same is true in the case of abiogensis. You can say all you want about how chemically unlikely such an event as abiogensis is (a lot of people who actually know what they are talking about would disagree with you) but it is in no way a contradiction or even an unreasonable application of thermodynamics.
I feel like this whole conversation is getting off topic. When I was saying originally had nothing to do with abiogenisis, but with death. For the sake of argument, lets entertain the idea that life was created. My original statement still stands, which was that the fundamental reason we live is the fundamental reason we die. The only reason events occur is because open systems must interact with their environment, but this always results in open systems gradually becoming uniform with their environment. You cannot blame a supernatural power for death, because death is a fundamental part of this reality. Sure, an all powerful god could change that, but you must not under-appreciate what that would mean. Doing so would change the very meaning of existence itself. This means that you cannot make claims about what things were like before death existed. Without death, there would be no atoms, no sun, no earth, and definitely no life that we could ever recognize or describe. Describing Adam and Eve as humans is sort of like describing an object in a universe with no light as having a color.
You tempt me to bring this conversation even farther from the original topic by the way you talk of the scientific method. It is abundantly clear to me that you have a very flawed understanding as to how science actually works and the meanings of basic scientific terms. This is understandable, but its a pretty fundamental flaw in most of what you have said so far. Like when you said "the laws of nature must have an author". This shows that you don't understand what a scientific law is. If you did, you would know that your statement is identical to saying "the universe must have been created." Obviously, this is what you believe, but appreciate the redundancy. What you said is not an argument for creation, its just saying the same thing in a different way. Its like saying "The bathroom must be unsanitary, because washrooms must be unsanitary." It's not an argument.
Please research the scientific method so that you actually know what you are talking about. In particular, you have no idea what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. (hint: it doesn't mean an uncertain idea). Hopefully you will come to realize how absurd it is to suppose that scientists have faith in their ideas. If scientists believed Einstein's theory on faith, then why is every discovery in cosmology these days actively trying to prove Einstein wrong? The answer, as you will find if you were to do your research, is because that's how you succeed in the scientific world. Scientists are in the business of proving each other wrong and making each other look stupid. That's how you get funding. That's how you get yourself the Nobel prize. Make Einstein look stupid and you will get a chapter in a physics textbook. But I really doubt that will happen. I have also had the pleasure of studying relativity in depth, and its rock solid. If you can prove that wrong, you really deserve that chapter in a text book.
Send me some links to videos that accurately describe the laws of thermodynamics, definition of theory.. etc.. it seems our conversation is becoming more about definitions then ideas.. so we really cant have a conversation concerning our ideas until our definitions are congruent. ..
And yes you are correct in assuming that i do, in fact, believe that the universe was created... by an author.. who's purpose it was to set up the physical laws that we describe and uncover..
But i still consider myself to be progressive and open-minded .. so I'll be awaiting those links
Rob Bell-isms? Oh no!
"Love requires freedom" - I think this is a misconception. It is based off of our very western and modern understanding of courtship. "You choose me, I choose you, we are happy so lets be together forever." While I am all for the way we do courtship it is not our only understanding of love. Children do not choose their parents. In fact, you could argue that good parent make their children love them by being loving parents to their children. The child is trained to trust the parent, to listen to the parent. And I think that this picture of love needs to be taken into account when we talk about the love of the Father. We do not choose Him, we are made to love Him because of his great love. I think that this video is a clear case of "getting God off the hook". We try to explain away some part of God that we cannot understand, and we just end up with a God who does not live in the mysterious anymore, He ends up being a God who is really no different that you and me.