On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[MilesAbbott81]

So your position is that you could be wrong and you can't be wrong. Faux humility.

To be clear, I'm talking about my personal faith here, not God's existence, which I've addressed prior to this post. And I didn't say I can't be wrong. Simply because the Lord has given me confirmations that I'm not wrong doesn't exclude the possibility that I am, it merely means He has provided me with confirmations that have strengthened my faith in Him. There is a difference.

False. A moments consideration would tell you why.

Vague answers aren't very helpful. I said "most" people are still searching for God, not that "all" are. If you're an atheist, then I suppose it's probable that your search has ended, at least for the time being. But I think many atheists are still searching, even if they pretend otherwise. I could be wrong, but it seems odd to me that places such as this exist. Why are you and others so interested in discussing the non-existence of God? What is your aim? To make yourselves feel better? To save others from what exactly, the comfort that believing in something beyond this horrible world provides? Not exactly a noble pursuit, if so.

Maybe you have decent reasons, or at least reasons you believe to be decent, but I know that everyone puts on a front at some point in their life, and that atheism is never justified.

I don't think you can support that claim in any way.

Perhaps not according to your standards, but I'm not here to operate by those.

Suuuuuuure.

(You said this in response to my claiming not to boast of knowing the Lord)

Maybe you're right; maybe I do mean to boast. The Scriptures say this is the only kind of boasting allowed: "Therefore, as it is written: 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.'" (1 Corinthians 1:31)

If I boast, it's not in or of myself. Everything I have God has given me, which speaks not of my righteousness or worthiness, only of His greatness for giving something of value to a worthless creature such as myself.

If I come off as proud, you're mistaken. It's simply confidence in the Lord and what He has given me.

Oh yes they bloody well can.

How so? If someone has no faith, but they're still searching, how can you possibly compare them to someone who has found faith and is no longer searching? One is no better than the other; they only happen to be in different positions.

You are not acknowledging anything other that your own certainty that you are correct.

So what? Would you consider the words of someone who claimed to be uncertain more seriously? Am I supposed to pretend to be uncertain in order to get your attention?

Ah you have swallowed that BS christian line.

God has NOT made his existence crystal clear to me, you or anyone. That would obviate faith completely.

Being an atheist takes no faith at all. As an atheist, I do not believe in any god/s of any sort. That is my claim. As evidence, I present me. I believe in no gods at all.

There you go. Affirmative claim made. Absolute evidence provided.

Are you going to wheel out the presuppositionalist crap yet?

Perhaps it's my fault for not being clearer here, but I think my previous posts addressed this fairly adequately. I don't consider the existence of God to have anything to do with faith. His existence is perfectly logical to anyone who has given it due consideration. If you've given it due consideration and are still unable to come to the same conclusion, then He has blinded you.

When I speak of faith, I speak of my faith in Who God is, that He is Yahweh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

[possibletarian]

Logic is sufficient to determine the existence of God; faith is unnecessary.

And who declares logic as logic ?

It's not difficult to see that creating something from nothing is clearly impossible,

How do you know it was nothing ?

therefore a being capable of performing impossible tasks must have created everything.

They are not impossible if they can be created or come about.

There are plenty of other reasons. The practical impossibility of the random creation of a single protein, or the even more distant (if such a thing can even be quantified) probability of functional DNA...

I think we have had a whole thread that rather casts doubt on that argument, declaring DNA as god created is nothing more than a deceleration of faith.

the amazing symmetry and design found in nature despite entropy...the reasons supporting the existence of God are practically endless.

And yet you still fail to show that a single one is anything more than a faith statement.  Declaring 'god did it' because we don't understand it is simply not proof of anything.

The reasons for denying His existence are literally zero

It's not so much denying as waiting for proof, show me the proof and what choice will we have but to put our denial aside ?

so long as one has the correct arguments. You can argue which God He is, but only the Christian God aligns perfectly with the correct arguments.

What arguments ?
  

Good question. Walking in Truth is walking with Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean one has all of the answers, it means that one doesn't have to have all of the answers because he or she has the Solution to all problems, Jesus Christ. It's not about knowledge, it's about looking to God instead of to yourself. It's not really an "achievement," it's something that happens by the grace of God alone. It's a gift.

That's just gobbledygook, a none answer, how can it be declared truth with no way to measure that truth ? Again nothing but a faith statement.

Well, the answer here is partly faith, but I've never seen the Truth contradicted. The Truth always prevails, because it's true. You'll know when you see it because it makes itself evident in the same way God's existence is evident. It will resonate with you.

Again gobbledygook, how do you separate self deception from truth ?  It seems you believe, because you believe.

Again, partly faith, but I've never seen anyone successfully contradict the Truth.

You mean change you mind, you have yet to provide a way to measure the truth of what you believe. That doesn't involve simply believing it's true.

Of course, there are very few people living today who know the Truth, and an abundance of those claiming to know but who are more or less clueless.

But again you have yet to answer how you know it to be truth, aside from statements of faith which you self believe.  

Sorry to repeat myself, but again, faith and the fact that I've never seen the Truth successfully contradicted.

Well as we have seen faith can get you to any position, how do you know for instance that the arguments you believe to be true (and therefore cannot be successfully refuted) are simply faith, you've already admitted here that almost every answer contains an element of faith, belief in things you cannot prove.
 

People certainly despise the Truth, but they're unable to defeat it.

I've seen flat earthers declare victory the same way, again if you say every answer is part faith, how do you know your faith is truth.

I'm not saying faith begets faith, although this isn't entirely false. Faith begins with grace. There is nothing one can do to earn it; it's a gift, as Paul writes in Ephesians:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8)

How do you know a book written by men can be trusted ?

I just wanted to address this part, since I sort of skipped it. Your language is a bit choppy here, but it seems you're saying that people stop what they are doing when they recognize their wrongdoing.  This isn't true. People tend to shrug off their wrongdoings, figuring it either isn't a big deal or that they'll do better next time, both of which are faulty assumptions in most cases. Wrongdoing is always serious, and we're incapable of refraining from evil completely in our own power. Only the grace and power of God can keep people from sinning.

And yet a quick look at the news, even just this day  will tell you it does not.

Why would you need proof before any useful repentance if faith is what is required? And if you don't currently have faith, that isn't necessarily a problem. It only means that you don't yet have it. It's a gift, and gifts are given at appropriate times. First, God needs to bring you to a place of true spiritual brokenness, where you're genuinely seeking Him because you genuinely want to repent, not because you desire power or glory or knowledge, or because you just want a better life (wanting a better life is part of it, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the only reason).

Again gobbledygook, why would you repent to a god who's existence is unproven ?

---

To be clear, I'm talking about my personal faith here, not God's existence, which I've addressed prior to this post. And I didn't say I can't be wrong. Simply because the Lord has given me confirmations that I'm not wrong doesn't exclude the possibility that I am, it merely means He has provided me with confirmations that have strengthened my faith in Him. There is a difference.

How do you know they are not simply in your head, or simply a faith position , how do you go about determining that on balance they are probably correct ?

Vague answers aren't very helpful. I said "most" people are still searching for God, not that "all" are. If you're an atheist, then I suppose it's probable that your search has ended, at least for the time being. But I think many atheists are still searching, even if they pretend otherwise. I could be wrong,

Despite many atheists telling you that you are wrong about this, how do you justify your belief that they are ?

but it seems odd to me that places such as this exist. Why are you and others so interested in discussing the non-existence of God? What is your aim? To make yourselves feel better? To save others from what exactly, the comfort that believing in something beyond this horrible world provides? Not exactly a noble pursuit, if so.

I think you will find challenging faith positions is also a pastime of believers when they concern other gods and faiths too. The discussions here are reactions to what we see as ludicrous statements made by believers. That and a reaction to what we see in the news.

Maybe you have decent reasons, or at least reasons you believe to be decent, but I know that everyone puts on a front at some point in their life, and that atheism is never justified.

Why would you have to justify a lack of belief in either a god, or many gods ?

Perhaps not according to your standards, but I'm not here to operate by those.

Yes you operate by faith, which has been pointed out can get anyone to any crackpot idea.

So what? Would you consider the words of someone who claimed to be uncertain more seriously? Am I supposed to pretend to be uncertain in order to get your attention?

There are many people certain of many things, why take any seriously without proof ? Should we take a person who seriously believes superman exists the same as someone who is uncertain, even dismissive ?

Perhaps it's my fault for not being clearer here, but I think my previous posts addressed this fairly adequately. I don't consider the existence of God to have anything to do with faith.

Really ?

His existence is perfectly logical to anyone who has given it due consideration. If you've given it due consideration and are still unable to come to the same conclusion

So ''if you don't believe the same as me, you either are blind, or have been blinded'' isn't that the claim of every religion and or crackpot ?

then He has blinded you.

Yes perfectly logical, the god who loves me so much as to die for me, then blinds me

When I speak of faith, I speak of my faith in Who God is, that He is Yahweh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where did you get this information from ?

[MilesAbbott81]

And who declares logic as logic ?

Call it common sense then. If you're going to say "who declares it common sense," well, I'd say "most people."

How do you know it was nothing ?

Because things don't simply exist without a source. To argue otherwise would be insane.

They are not impossible if they can be created or come about.

I mean according to natural laws, obviously I know they are possible through God. Are you being deliberately difficult?

I think we have had a whole thread that rather casts doubt on that argument, declaring DNA as god created is nothing more than a deceleration of faith.

I'm not here to go tit for tat with you about specifics. If you choose to believe things that make no sense, that's your choice.

And yet you still fail to show that a single one is anything more than a faith statement.  Declaring 'god did it' because we don't understand it is simply not proof of anything.

According to your standards, which don't matter. Only God's standards matter, and He has declared His creation to you very plainly, so that even the simple can deduce it. Something cannot come from nothing, and that's really all you need to know. If you need more than that, well, you're either an idiot or God has blinded you. There is no other option.

It's not so much denying as waiting for proof, show me the proof and what choice will we have but to put our denial aside ?

You deny His existence when you demand something He has already given you. You're saying "this isn't enough." It's enough. The problem isn't His, it's yours. You've created it.

What arguments ?

Well, a big one for me is universal salvation. People can't reconcile the existence of evil because they don't understand its purpose, and its purpose can only be understood in light of the truth of universal salvation. Otherwise God is painted as unimaginably cruel, which just isn't true. I don't know of any religion that explains the purpose of evil adequately; only Christianity does.

That's just gobbledygook, a none answer, how can it be declared truth with no way to measure that truth ? Again nothing but a faith statement.

The truth can be measured when no argument is able to defeat it, and when it can be applied to history and everyday life. That doesn't mean you personally will be able to measure it, but others will. Truly, if you can't even recognize the Truth when it becomes manifest, which I'm not even sure is possible, then you likely have no hope for salvation in this life.

Again gobbledygook, how do you separate self deception from truth ?  It seems you believe, because you believe.

The better question is, how can you call it gobbledygook if you've never heard the Truth? You probably haven't. Just because you hear the Truth doesn't mean you'll accept it. Jesus Christ spoke the Truth and people hated Him for it, and eventually killed Him for it. The Truth is not a pleasant thing to hear, which is partly why it's so easy to recognize.

You mean change you mind, you have yet to provide a way to measure the truth of what you believe. That doesn't involve simply believing it's true.

I would probably measure the Truth by the fact that I ran from it as fast as I could when I first heard it. But I was brought back, because we don't choose the day of our salvation; the Lord decides when and how you get saved.

But again you have yet to answer how you know it to be truth, aside from statements of faith which you self believe.  

Again, it IS a matter of faith. To clarify once again, we're no longer speaking of proving God's existence, but about my particular brand of faith. By the very definition it's a matter of faith.

Well as we have seen faith can get you to any position, how do you know for instance that the arguments you believe to be true (and therefore cannot be successfully refuted) are simply faith, you've already admitted here that almost every answer contains an element of faith, belief in things you cannot prove.

See above answer. On the grounds of doctrine and common sense, mine is the only faith that can't be contradicted, as long as you want to concede that God does in fact exist for the sake of the argument(s).

How do you know a book written by men can be trusted ?

Well, we know because the Spirit of God reveals it to us, primarily. But one can also tell when one speaks by His Spirit, because it won't be contradicted by other Scriptures. Paul's epistles can't be contradicted.

And yet a quick look at the news, even just this day  will tell you it does not.

The world exists as it does today precisely because there hasn't been much grace given to men at present. And this is all perfectly okay and part of God's design...fortunately, things will be changing very soon.

Again gobbledygook, why would you repent to a god who's existence is unproven ?

It's not gobbledygook, you're just repeating yourself again. The question isn't even necessarily "why would you repent to a god"; how about starting with "why would you not repent"? Take God out of the equation, unless you happen to view yourself as morally bankrupt and don't care that that is the case. So answer that question for me, please.

[fredd bear]

Logic is sufficient to determine the existence of God; faith is unnecessary.

And who declares logic as logic ?

It's not difficult to see that creating something from nothing is clearly impossible,

How do you know it was nothing ?

therefore a being capable of performing impossible tasks must have created everything.

They are not impossible if they can be created or come about.

There are plenty of other reasons. The practical impossibility of the random creation of a single protein, or the even more distant (if such a thing can even be quantified) probability of functional DNA...

I think we have had a whole thread that rather casts doubt on that argument, declaring DNA as god created is nothing more than a deceleration of faith.

the amazing symmetry and design found in nature despite entropy...the reasons supporting the existence of God are practically endless.

And yet you still fail to show that a single one is anything more than a faith statement.  Declaring 'god did it' because we don't understand it is simply not proof of anything.

The reasons for denying His existence are literally zero

It's not so much denying as waiting for proof, show me the proof and what choice will we have but to put our denial aside ?

so long as one has the correct arguments. You can argue which God He is, but only the Christian God aligns perfectly with the correct arguments.

What arguments ?
  

Good question. Walking in Truth is walking with Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean one has all of the answers, it means that one doesn't have to have all of the answers because he or she has the Solution to all problems, Jesus Christ. It's not about knowledge, it's about looking to God instead of to yourself. It's not really an "achievement," it's something that happens by the grace of God alone. It's a gift.

That's just gobbledygook, a none answer, how can it be declared truth with no way to measure that truth ? Again nothing but a faith statement.

Well, the answer here is partly faith, but I've never seen the Truth contradicted. The Truth always prevails, because it's true. You'll know when you see it because it makes itself evident in the same way God's existence is evident. It will resonate with you.

Again gobbledygook, how do you separate self deception from truth ?  It seems you believe, because you believe.

Again, partly faith, but I've never seen anyone successfully contradict the Truth.

You mean change you mind, you have yet to provide a way to measure the truth of what you believe. That doesn't involve simply believing it's true.

Of course, there are very few people living today who know the Truth, and an abundance of those claiming to know but who are more or less clueless.

But again you have yet to answer how you know it to be truth, aside from statements of faith which you self believe.  

Sorry to repeat myself, but again, faith and the fact that I've never seen the Truth successfully contradicted.

Well as we have seen faith can get you to any position, how do you know for instance that the arguments you believe to be true (and therefore cannot be successfully refuted) are simply faith, you've already admitted here that almost every answer contains an element of faith, belief in things you cannot prove.
 

People certainly despise the Truth, but they're unable to defeat it.

I've seen flat earthers declare victory the same way, again if you say every answer is part faith, how do you know your faith is truth.

I'm not saying faith begets faith, although this isn't entirely false. Faith begins with grace. There is nothing one can do to earn it; it's a gift, as Paul writes in Ephesians:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8)

How do you know a book written by men can be trusted ?

I just wanted to address this part, since I sort of skipped it. Your language is a bit choppy here, but it seems you're saying that people stop what they are doing when they recognize their wrongdoing.  This isn't true. People tend to shrug off their wrongdoings, figuring it either isn't a big deal or that they'll do better next time, both of which are faulty assumptions in most cases. Wrongdoing is always serious, and we're incapable of refraining from evil completely in our own power. Only the grace and power of God can keep people from sinning.

And yet a quick look at the news, even just this day  will tell you it does not.

Why would you need proof before any useful repentance if faith is what is required? And if you don't currently have faith, that isn't necessarily a problem. It only means that you don't yet have it. It's a gift, and gifts are given at appropriate times. First, God needs to bring you to a place of true spiritual brokenness, where you're genuinely seeking Him because you genuinely want to repent, not because you desire power or glory or knowledge, or because you just want a better life (wanting a better life is part of it, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the only reason).

Again gobbledygook, why would you repent to a god who's existence is unproven ?

---

To be clear, I'm talking about my personal faith here, not God's existence, which I've addressed prior to this post. And I didn't say I can't be wrong. Simply because the Lord has given me confirmations that I'm not wrong doesn't exclude the possibility that I am, it merely means He has provided me with confirmations that have strengthened my faith in Him. There is a difference.

How do you know they are not simply in your head, or simply a faith position , how do you go about determining that on balance they are probably correct ?

Vague answers aren't very helpful. I said "most" people are still searching for God, not that "all" are. If you're an atheist, then I suppose it's probable that your search has ended, at least for the time being. But I think many atheists are still searching, even if they pretend otherwise. I could be wrong,

Despite many atheists telling you that you are wrong about this, how do you justify your belief that they are ?

but it seems odd to me that places such as this exist. Why are you and others so interested in discussing the non-existence of God? What is your aim? To make yourselves feel better? To save others from what exactly, the comfort that believing in something beyond this horrible world provides? Not exactly a noble pursuit, if so.

I think you will find challenging faith positions is also a pastime of believers when they concern other gods and faiths too. The discussions here are reactions to what we see as ludicrous statements made by believers.  That and a reaction to what we see in the news.

Maybe you have decent reasons, or at least reasons you believe to be decent, but I know that everyone puts on a front at some point in their life, and that atheism is never justified.

Why would  you have to justify a lack of belief in either a god, or many gods ?

Perhaps not according to your standards, but I'm not here to operate by those.

Yes you operate by faith, which has been pointed out can get anyone to any crackpot idea.

So what? Would you consider the words of someone who claimed to be uncertain more seriously? Am I supposed to pretend to be uncertain in order to get your attention?

There are many people certain of many things, why take any seriously without proof ?  Should we take a person who seriously believes superman exists the same as someone who is uncertain, even dismissive ?

Perhaps it's my fault for not being clearer here, but I think my previous posts addressed this fairly adequately. I don't consider the existence of God to have anything to do with faith.

Really ?

His existence is perfectly logical to anyone who has given it due consideration. If you've given it due consideration and are still unable to come to the same conclusion

So ''if you don't believe the same as me, you either are blind, or have been blinded'' isn't that the claim of every religion and or crackpot ?

then He has blinded you.

Yes perfectly logical, the god who loves me so much as to die for me, then blinds me

When I speak of faith, I speak of my faith in Who God is, that He is Yahweh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where did you get this information from ?

 Great post. Also really like the name.  

Although you are running rings around what's his name, he'll never admit. it   The dude doesn't even understand the most basic thing about logic; IE In itself, logic is insufficient to prove anything.   Truth may  be claimed from a logical inference, IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

Great job, but I lack your patience. Reading this thread has only reinforced my decision not to engage with apologists. I'm weak, I would end up saying some very unkind things and get myself banned.


PS: As it turns out,  it is beginning to look as if something can indeed come from nothing.   Physicists been aware of this for sometime .   The claim  nothing can come from nothing  may no longer be made because it is "self evident".  Christianity is antithetical to science because it rejects any science which contradicts dogma.

The clip below  features Lawrence Krauss, an actual scientist, explaining how something can come from nothing.v. This is meant to perhaps give you some ammo, not in anyway  to patronise or  criticise you.

Lawrence Krauss has a large Wiki entry (yes he may have been naughty, but that does not change his basic credentials)

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born 1954) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and a former professor at Yale University and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as its director until July 2018.[2] In response to allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU conducted an investigation. Having determined that Krauss had violated university policy, they removed him from his position.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

[MilesAbbott81]

 Great post. Also really like the name.  

Although you are running rings around what's his name, he'll never admit. it   The dude doesn't even understand the most basic thing about logic; IE In itself, logic is insufficient to prove anything.   Truth may  be claimed from a logical inference, IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

Great job, but I lack your patience. Reading this thread has only reinforced my decision not to engage with apologists. I'm weak, I would end up saying some very unkind things and get myself banned.


PS: As it turns out,  it is beginning to look as if something can indeed come from nothing.   Physicists been aware of this for sometime .   The claim  nothing can come from nothing  may no longer be made because it is "self evident".  Christianity is antithetical to science because it rejects any science which contradicts dogma.

The clip below  features Lawrence Krauss, an actual scientist, explaining how something can come from nothing.v. This is meant to perhaps give you some ammo, not in anyway  to patronise or  criticise you.

Typical condescension. You presume I know nothing about logic, when I know perfectly well what it is. I'm saying that God is the One Who determines what constitutes proof...NOT YOU.

And Lawrence Krauss, an actual fool, has absolutely no understanding of where particles seeming to blink into existence actually come from, therefore he can't say they come from nothing. It amazes me how someone can be so obviously wrong, doing nothing at all to further his argument and not realize he isn't furthering it (I'm speaking of Krauss). God blinding men is a terrible sight to behold.

[fredd bear]

 Great post. Also really like the name.  

Although you are running rings around what's his name, he'll never admit. it   The dude doesn't even understand the most basic thing about logic; IE In itself, logic is insufficient to prove anything.   Truth may  be claimed from a logical inference, IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

Great job, but I lack your patience. Reading this thread has only reinforced my decision not to engage with apologists. I'm weak, I would end up saying some very unkind things and get myself banned.


PS: As it turns out,  it is beginning to look as if something can indeed come from nothing.   Physicists been aware of this for sometime .   The claim  nothing can come from nothing  may no longer be made because it is "self evident".  Christianity is antithetical to science because it rejects any science which contradicts dogma.

The clip below  features Lawrence Krauss, an actual scientist, explaining how something can come from nothing.v. This is meant to perhaps give you some ammo, not in anyway  to patronise or  criticise you.

Typical condescension. You presume I know nothing about logic, when I know perfectly well what it is. I'm saying that God is the One Who determines what constitutes proof...NOT YOU.

And Lawrence Krauss, an actual fool, has absolutely no understanding of where particles seeming to blink into existence actually come from, therefore he can't say they come from nothing. It amazes me how someone can be so obviously wrong, doing nothing at all to further his argument and not realize he isn't furthering it (I'm speaking of Krauss). God blinding men is a terrible sight to behold.


Perhaps you misunderstood: I do not engage with apologists. I really don't have the patience. Please go away.

[possibletarian]

Typical condescension. You presume I know nothing about logic, when I know perfectly well what it is. I'm saying that God is the One Who determines what constitutes proof...NOT YOU.

How do we determine that to be true ?

And Lawrence Krauss, an actual fool, has absolutely no understanding of where particles seeming to blink into existence actually come from, therefore he can't say they come from nothing. It amazes me how someone can be so obviously wrong, doing nothing at all to further his argument and not realize he isn't furthering it (I'm speaking of Krauss). God blinding men is a terrible sight to behold.

And how did you come to that conclusion ? Other than he does not believe what you believe.
The universe from nothing argument aside. How do you know it came from nothing ?

[MilesAbbott81]

Perhaps you misunderstood: I do not engage with apologists. I really don't have the patience. Please go away.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't write things in a discussion thread that could just as easily be sent via private mail. I have a right to respond to anything written in this thread. If you don't like it, then you go away.

[fredd bear]

Perhaps you misunderstood: I do not engage with apologists. I really don't have the patience. Please go away.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't write things in a discussion thread that could just as easily be sent via private mail. I have a right to respond to anything written in this thread. If you don't like it, then you go away.

No, I don't think so.

I'll post where I like. I had no right  to tell you to go away. I'll simply ignore you. I invite you to do the same if I post something you don't like.

[MilesAbbott81]

Typical condescension. You presume I know nothing about logic, when I know perfectly well what it is. I'm saying that God is the One Who determines what constitutes proof...NOT YOU.

How do we determine that to be true ?

And Lawrence Krauss, an actual fool, has absolutely no understanding of where particles seeming to blink into existence actually come from, therefore he can't say they come from nothing. It amazes me how someone can be so obviously wrong, doing nothing at all to further his argument and not realize he isn't furthering it (I'm speaking of Krauss). God blinding men is a terrible sight to behold.

And how did you come to that conclusion ?  Other than he does not believe what you believe.
The universe from nothing argument aside. How do you know it came from nothing ?

Who says you have to determine it to be true? God doesn't save everyone in this life. Maybe you weren't meant to understand. Doesn't make it okay, but it is an answer. But to answer the question, you determine it to be true by the grace of God, and that alone. You can't receive one thing in this world unless it comes from Him.

As for Krauss, I never said I knew the particles came from nothing (if I'm understanding your language correctly). I don't know where they came from, either. But Krauss can't definitively say they came from nothing because he has no idea where they came from. He is assuming they came from nothing. They came from something alright, he just doesn't know what.