Cause And Effect

[Jobrjo]

Spoiler

The following words are not mine, but are those of Apologetics Press, Inc. I'm just posting it here for discussion.

When the writer of Hebrews stated that "...every house is builded by someone..." (Hebrews 3:4), he suggested the well-known Law of Cause and Effect. This principle says that wherever there is an effect there must be an adequate cause. Dr. Robert Jastrow, considered by many to be the finest science writer of the modern era, has observed that the notion of an effect without a cause is witchcraft, not science (1977, p. 5).
Here, then, is the problem: the Universe exists; it must, in some fashion, be explained. There are but three ways to account for it. (1) It is eternal. (2) It is not eternal; rather it created itself from nothing. (3) It is not eternal; it was created by something anterior, and superior, to itself. Let us now explore these ideas.
First, it is now clear scientifically that the Universe is not eternal. Jastrow declares: "...in science, as in the Bible, the World begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that our Universe has not existed forever; that is began abruptly, without any apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation" (p. 2). The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an age to the Universe admits to its having an origin!
Second, it is absurd to even suggest that matter could create itself. There is no known natural process whereby matter could, from nothing, fashion itself. Dr. George E. Davis, a physicist, has said: "No material thing can create itself" (1958, p. 71). The Universe is not self-explanatory.
Third, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by (a) something that existed before it did, i.e., some eternal uncaused Cause; (b) something superior to it, for the created cannot be superior to the Creator, and; (c) something of a different nature since the finite, dependent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself!
In this connection, let us think about this: if there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, for nothing produces nothing but nothingness! Since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed always. Exactly what was that?
Everything that exists can be classified either as matter or mind. Can you think of something that cannot be so categorized? Look, then, at this argument:
1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Hence, either matter or mind must be eternal.
3. But, as shown already, matter is not eternal.
4. Therefore, it is mind that is eternal. That Mind, the original Cause, is identified in the Bible as God.
As a further extension of our "cause and effect" argument, we suggest that physical life itself cannot be explained only in terms of some eternal, non-physical life force that created life as we observe it. Consider the following.
Atheism is forced to assume that physical life, at some remote point in the past, was spontaneously generated from inorganic materials. But the evidence is squarely against that notion. Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and colleagues have admitted that the spontaneous generation of life "does not occur in any known case" (1957, p. 261) Others have confirmed that "there is no scientific evidence" for that idea (Green and Goldberger, 1967, pp. 406-407).
Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smalles simplest from of living organism known is one in 1 x 10³⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ [that is 1 followed by 340 million zeros] (1968, p. 99). Do you know what a staggering figure that is? The entire Universe is said to contain only 10⁸⁰ electrons! Dr. Carl Sgan has estimated that the chance of life evolving on Earth is one in 1 x 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ [1 followed by two billion zeros]. It would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write that number! Yet they expect us to believe it just happened as a result of some freak accident! The late Professor Edwin Conklin of Princeton University put it this way "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (1963, p. 92).
Let us thus sum up like this: (1) Life was either spontaneously generated by accident from inorganic substances, or it was created purposely by an eternal force. [NOTE: Evolutionists admit this. Dr. George Wald acknowledged that there are only two alternatives with reference to the origin of life-spontaneous generation or special creation (1954, p. 46).] (2) But all the evidence indicates it does not, and could not, start spontaneously by chance. (3) The evidence forces one to believe that life originally was created by an Eternal Life Force!
In our next lesson, we will build upon the foundation just laid, and introduce additional evidences which support the proposition: GOD IS!

Spoiler

I will be responding, with my own words of course. If you want me to respond to you please quote me. PM/VM of course works too.

 

[Lyke]

Do you really think someone normal is going to read that?

 

[Ψ Veritas Ψ]

Spoiler

The following words are not mine, but are those of Apologetics Press, Inc. I'm just posting it here for discussion.

When the writer of Hebrews stated that "...every house is builded by someone..." (Hebrews 3:4), he suggested the well-known Law of Cause and Effect. This principle says that wherever there is an effect there must be an adequate cause. Dr. Robert Jastrow, considered by many to be the finest science writer of the modern era, has observed that the notion of an effect without a cause is witchcraft, not science (1977, p. 5).
Here, then, is the problem: the Universe exists; it must, in some fashion, be explained. There are but three ways to account for it. (1) It is eternal. (2) It is not eternal; rather it created itself from nothing. (3) It is not eternal; it was created by something anterior, and superior, to itself. Let us now explore these ideas.
First, it is now clear scientifically that the Universe is not eternal. Jastrow declares: "...in science, as in the Bible, the World begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that our Universe has not existed forever; that is began abruptly, without any apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation" (p. 2). The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an age to the Universe admits to its having an origin!
Second, it is absurd to even suggest that matter could create itself. There is no known natural process whereby matter could, from nothing, fashion itself. Dr. George E. Davis, a physicist, has said: "No material thing can create itself" (1958, p. 71). The Universe is not self-explanatory.
Third, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by (a) something that existed before it did, i.e., some eternal uncaused Cause; (b) something superior to it, for the created cannot be superior to the Creator, and; (c) something of a different nature since the finite, dependent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself!
In this connection, let us think about this: if there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, for nothing produces nothing but nothingness! Since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed always. Exactly what was that?
Everything that exists can be classified either as matter or mind. Can you think of something that cannot be so categorized? Look, then, at this argument:
1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Hence, either matter or mind must be eternal.
3. But, as shown already, matter is not eternal.
4. Therefore, it is mind that is eternal. That Mind, the original Cause, is identified in the Bible as God.
As a further extension of our "cause and effect" argument, we suggest that physical life itself cannot be explained only in terms of some eternal, non-physical life force that created life as we observe it. Consider the following.
Atheism is forced to assume that physical life, at some remote point in the past, was spontaneously generated from inorganic materials. But the evidence is squarely against that notion. Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and colleagues have admitted that the spontaneous generation of life "does not occur in any known case" (1957, p. 261) Others have confirmed that "there is no scientific evidence" for that idea (Green and Goldberger, 1967, pp. 406-407).
Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smalles simplest from of living organism known is one in 1 x 10³⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ [that is 1 followed by 340 million zeros] (1968, p. 99). Do you know what a staggering figure that is? The entire Universe is said to contain only 10⁸⁰ electrons! Dr. Carl Sgan has estimated that the chance of life evolving on Earth is one in 1 x 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ [1 followed by two billion zeros]. It would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write that number! Yet they expect us to believe it just happened as a result of some freak accident! The late Professor Edwin Conklin of Princeton University put it this way "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (1963, p. 92).
Let us thus sum up like this: (1) Life was either spontaneously generated by accident from inorganic substances, or it was created purposely by an eternal force. [NOTE: Evolutionists admit this. Dr. George Wald acknowledged that there are only two alternatives with reference to the origin of life-spontaneous generation or special creation (1954, p. 46).] (2) But all the evidence indicates it does not, and could not, start spontaneously by chance. (3) The evidence forces one to believe that life originally was created by an Eternal Life Force!
In our next lesson, we will build upon the foundation just laid, and introduce additional evidences which support the proposition: GOD IS!

Spoiler

I will be responding, with my own words of course. If you want me to respond to you please quote me. PM/VM of course works too.

Matter or Mind? lol who came up with that narrow mnded Logic - There is so much more in this Universe than just matter or mind, and this most likely isnt the only Universe.

What you may not see is that Cause and Effect are one and the same!, for 1 cause that creates an effect, that very effect will become the "Cause" OF another effect and so on and so on!

I believe Existence and Nonexistence to be 1 and the same, I wlll explain this in a different thread.

Do you really think someone normal is going to read that?

What do you mean by that statement.

 

[Sir Blades]

I'm sorry but this is just too much, i'm on a holiday break, I aint got time for this.

 

[Lyke]

Matter or Mind? lol who came up with that narrow mnded Logic - There is so much more in this Universe than just matter or mind, and this most likely isnt the only Universe.

Serious? Are you really serious? Did you read that?
Usbsiwdkqdjqjbdjjqndnwndnwnndndnd

 

[Lyke]

I'm sorry but this is just too much, i'm on a holiday break, I aint got time for this.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Ψ Veritas Ψ]

Serious? Are you really serious? Did you read that?
Usbsiwdkqdjqjbdjjqndnwndnwnndndnd

Yes I read it, and you didnt answer my question.

 

[Lyke]

Yes I read it, and you didnt answer my question.

I wouldn't even bother reading a text smaller than my pênis

 

[EnDash]

Spoiler

The following words are not mine, but are those of Apologetics Press, Inc. I'm just posting it here for discussion.

When the writer of Hebrews stated that "...every house is builded by someone..." (Hebrews 3:4), he suggested the well-known Law of Cause and Effect. This principle says that wherever there is an effect there must be an adequate cause. Dr. Robert Jastrow, considered by many to be the finest science writer of the modern era, has observed that the notion of an effect without a cause is witchcraft, not science (1977, p. 5).
Here, then, is the problem: the Universe exists; it must, in some fashion, be explained. There are but three ways to account for it. (1) It is eternal. (2) It is not eternal; rather it created itself from nothing. (3) It is not eternal; it was created by something anterior, and superior, to itself. Let us now explore these ideas.
First, it is now clear scientifically that the Universe is not eternal. Jastrow declares: "...in science, as in the Bible, the World begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that our Universe has not existed forever; that is began abruptly, without any apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation" (p. 2). The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an age to the Universe admits to its having an origin!
Second, it is absurd to even suggest that matter could create itself. There is no known natural process whereby matter could, from nothing, fashion itself. Dr. George E. Davis, a physicist, has said: "No material thing can create itself" (1958, p. 71). The Universe is not self-explanatory.
Third, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by (a) something that existed before it did, i.e., some eternal uncaused Cause; (b) something superior to it, for the created cannot be superior to the Creator, and; (c) something of a different nature since the finite, dependent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself!
In this connection, let us think about this: if there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, for nothing produces nothing but nothingness! Since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed always. Exactly what was that?
Everything that exists can be classified either as matter or mind. Can you think of something that cannot be so categorized? Look, then, at this argument:
1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Hence, either matter or mind must be eternal.
3. But, as shown already, matter is not eternal.
4. Therefore, it is mind that is eternal. That Mind, the original Cause, is identified in the Bible as God.
As a further extension of our "cause and effect" argument, we suggest that physical life itself cannot be explained only in terms of some eternal, non-physical life force that created life as we observe it. Consider the following.
Atheism is forced to assume that physical life, at some remote point in the past, was spontaneously generated from inorganic materials. But the evidence is squarely against that notion. Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and colleagues have admitted that the spontaneous generation of life "does not occur in any known case" (1957, p. 261) Others have confirmed that "there is no scientific evidence" for that idea (Green and Goldberger, 1967, pp. 406-407).
Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smalles simplest from of living organism known is one in 1 x 10³⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ [that is 1 followed by 340 million zeros] (1968, p. 99). Do you know what a staggering figure that is? The entire Universe is said to contain only 10⁸⁰ electrons! Dr. Carl Sgan has estimated that the chance of life evolving on Earth is one in 1 x 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ [1 followed by two billion zeros]. It would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write that number! Yet they expect us to believe it just happened as a result of some freak accident! The late Professor Edwin Conklin of Princeton University put it this way "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (1963, p. 92).
Let us thus sum up like this: (1) Life was either spontaneously generated by accident from inorganic substances, or it was created purposely by an eternal force. [NOTE: Evolutionists admit this. Dr. George Wald acknowledged that there are only two alternatives with reference to the origin of life-spontaneous generation or special creation (1954, p. 46).] (2) But all the evidence indicates it does not, and could not, start spontaneously by chance. (3) The evidence forces one to believe that life originally was created by an Eternal Life Force!
In our next lesson, we will build upon the foundation just laid, and introduce additional evidences which support the proposition: GOD IS!

Spoiler

I will be responding, with my own words of course. If you want me to respond to you please quote me. PM/VM of course works too.

no one is arguing that the universe was created, and no one is arguing that it required significant energy or very precise conditions to be created, no one is arguing that life just came out of no where and no one is arguing that we don't know how it happened. but none of this proves god did any of this, the chance of life originating from a logical creator is just as far fetched as it originating from an accident and the chance of the universe being created by a logical creator is just as far fetched as it being created by itself.

science requires proof, we have no proof that god exist or proof that he doesn't exist. so you can't claim scientificly that he does or doesn't, at most you can scientificly say you don't know. personally i still don't believe god exist.

 

[Jobrjo]

no one is arguing that the universe was created, and no one is arguing that it required significant energy or very precise conditions to be created, no one is arguing that life just came out of no where and no one is arguing that we don't know how it happened. but none of this proves god did any of this, the chance of life originating from a logical creator is just as far fetched as it originating from an accident and the chance of the universe being created by a logical creator is just as far fetched as it being created by itself.

science requires proof, we have no proof that god exist or proof that he doesn't exist. so you can't claim scientificly that he does or doesn't, at most you can scientificly say you don't know. personally i still don't believe god exist.

It is eternal, it created itself, or it was created by something greater- those are the only logical options (unless you have soem other). Logically, a Creator is the only option here.

 

[YowYan]

I only read the last line "God is!" to see your conclusion.

What a fail.

The universe goes inwards endlessly. We just can't comprehend it. And it goes outwards endlessly. It has no begining or end, thus it's not something that's created. A creator is more likely the whole. And yes, I don't see this as unquestionable, but it's backed by kymatics and other sciences.

"God is" is just a simpleton conclusion to try and act like you understand religious scripts which all originate from astrology and the teachings of a higher understanding of nature.

 

[Jobrjo]

I only read the last line "God is!" to see your conclusion.

What a fail.

The universe goes inwards endlessly. We just can't comprehend it. And it goes outwards endlessly. It has no begining or end, thus it's not something that's created. A creator is more likely the whole. And yes, I don't see this as unquestionable, but it's backed by kymatics and other sciences.

"God is" is just a simpleton conclusion to try and act like you understand religious scripts which all originate from astrology and the teachings of a higher understanding of nature.

Now I don't know everything, but I'll respond to the best of my ability:
-Last time I checked, the universe isn't infinite. It is [supposedly] expanding. But it is limited not infinite.
-How do you know the universe has no beginning or end? Thermodynamics disagree.

 

[EnDash]

It is eternal, it created itself, or it was created by something greater- those are the only logical options (unless you have soem other). Logically, a Creator is the only option here.

sure, but that creator doesn't have to be god, it could just as well be a really powerful squirrel that created the universe. or an extremly powerful force of nature that has no intelligence. again, no one is arguing that there was a creation, but a creator is only a probability and the identity of that creator is even a lower probability. concluding that god is the creator of the universe without proof that god created the universe is unscientific and you should hold yourself to a higher standard.

 

[Jobrjo]

sure, but that creator doesn't have to be god, it could just as well be a really powerful squirrel that created the universe. or an extremly powerful force of nature that has no intelligence. again, no one is arguing that there was a creation, but a creator is only a probability and the identity of that creator is even a lower probability. concluding that god is the creator of the universe without proof that god created the universe is unscientific and you should hold yourself to a higher standard.

Ok understood, i can go from there. But are you agreeing there is a Creator?

 

[EnDash]

Ok understood, i can go from there. But are you agreeing there is a Creator?

i agree it's possible, very possible. if anyone tells you there is no god then they don't know what they are talking about because they can't possible know that for sure. the existence of a creator is a belief, not a known fact, i personally don't believe in him, but i can be wrong.

 

[Jobrjo]

i agree it's possible, very possible. if anyone tells you there is no god then they don't know what they are talking about because they can't possible know that for sure. the existence of a creator is a belief, not a known fact, i personally don't believe in him, but i can be wrong.

(before we continue I'd like to say I respect your honesty, frankness, and sound mind- and additionally your ever-so-rare ability to discuss something controversial without emotions flaring out of control haha)

Alright, well I'd like to make my intions clear. I gain nothing from trying to prove you wrong, rather I'm trying to convince, or at least produce thought. If you don't believe in some form of Creator, then do you believe matter is infinite, it created itself, something else, or are you unsure? Sorry for all the questions

 

[EnDash]

(before we continue I'd like to say I respect your honesty, frankness, and sound mind- and additionally your ever-so-rare ability to discuss something controversial without emotions flaring out of control haha)

Alright, well I'd like to make my intions clear. I gain nothing from trying to prove you wrong, rather I'm trying to convince, or at least produce thought. If you don't believe in some form of Creator, then do you believe matter is infinite, it created itself, something else, or are you unsure? Sorry for all the questions

that's fine, i like interesting conversations, and i thank you as well for all the above

well i believe that the universe is just an expanding space, and that matter in it is something that exist and followes the rules of nature. the big bang was simply a burst of immense energy following the creation of the universe where matter was pushed in all directions. what was before the big bang, and how it happened? i have no idea, string theory suggest that there is a multiverse of universes ("like bubbles in a bubble bath") and that bubbles sometimes come in contact and merge into a bigger bubble, and sometimes seperate into smaller bubbles, which is what some scientists believe is the big bang. string theory is both incomplete and unproven, but it's there with all the other possibilites.

for reference, in the event that god does exist and both heaven and hell exist, then i am (hopefuly) prepared to meet him, be judged and probably go to hell. my life and decisions are independent of god, regardless if he exists or not. and i think humans should be able to tell god how wrong he is, even if he doesn't like that. my argument with religious people is not wether god exists or not, is that if he does exist he should be responsible for all the mistakes he did.

 

[Jobrjo]

that's fine, i like interesting conversations, and i thank you as well for all the above

well i believe that the universe is just an expanding space, and that matter in it is something that exist and followes the rules of nature. the big bang was simply a burst of immense energy following the creation of the universe where matter was pushed in all directions. what was before the big bang, and how it happened? i have no idea, string theory suggest that there is a multiverse of universes ("like bubbles in a bubble bath") and that bubbles sometimes come in contact and merge into a bigger bubble, and sometimes seperate into smaller bubbles, which is what some scientists believe is the big bang. string theory is both incomplete and unproven, but it's there with all the other possibilites.

for reference, in the event that god does exist and both heaven and hell exist, then i am (hopefuly) prepared to meet him, be judged and probably go to hell. my life and decisions are independent of god, regardless if he exists or not. and i think humans should be able to tell god how wrong he is, even if he doesn't like that. my argument with religious people is not wether god exists or not, is that if he does exist he should be responsible for all the mistakes he did.

(I'll respond solely to the 1st paragraph for topicality.)

Alright so I see what you believe but I'm gonna try to start at the core here. How is it that anyone can create a theroy with an end result, without being able to explain the beginning? Logic demands that for something (God, big bang, evolution, string theory, anything) to be true it's beginning must also be true and definable. Never do you find someone seeing a tree, and deducing it came form a seed. Rather you see a seed and watch it become a tree. Otherwise, by seeing the tree you could assume dirt hardened and changed over time, that a fairy made a wish, that XYZ happened and never get the truth. For any theory to be valid you need to be able to explain it's beginnings otherwise it has no value.

Can you explain how it all began, or can you propose a theory and then say "we don't know how it happened"?

 

[EnDash]

(I'll respond solely to the 1st paragraph for topicality.)

Alright so I see what you believe but I'm gonna try to start at the core here. How is it that anyone can create a theroy with an end result, without being able to explain the beginning? Logic demands that for something (God, big bang, evolution, string theory, anything) to be true it's beginning must also be true and definable. Never do you find someone seeing a tree, and deducing it came form a seed. Rather you see a seed and watch it become a tree. Otherwise, by seeing the tree you could assume dirt hardened and changed over time, that a fairy made a wish, that XYZ happened and never get the truth. For any theory to be valid you need to be able to explain it's beginnings otherwise it has no value.

Can you explain how it all began, or can you propose a theory and then say "we don't know how it happened"?

we mainly create theories by observing what happens to stuff around and after the "event", because we can't always see the event itself. almost all science is based on observing side effects rather then the actual thing, doctors and healers for centuries knew many things about disease and how it spreads without ever seeing germs or microbes and things like gravity were explained by how objects are affected by it rather then by "how it works".

so yes, we don't know what cuased the big bang, we are not even sure what the big bang was. the only thing we know is what happened after the creation of the universe, not how it created but how it "progressed" after creation. science works by proving things and the big bang theory is unproven. and you don't have to see things directly or show how they themselves work to prove them, observing side effects is most of the times enough.

take all the miracles of god for example, like the great flood. people never saw god "conjure" the great flood, they never saw the great flood being created, or the destruction of sodom and gamorah, no one saw god do anything and no one knows where the fiery rocks came from. but still we can deduce it was made by god even though we never saw god actully doing it. because stuff like that can only be explained by god, and the universe as it is now can only be explained by the big bang.

 

[Jobrjo]

Awe mainly create theories by observing what happens to stuff around and after the "event", because we can't always see the event itself. almost all science is based on observing side effects rather then the actual thing, doctors and healers for centuries knew many things about disease and how it spreads without ever seeing germs or microbes and things like gravity were explained by how objects are affected by it rather then by "how it works".

so yes, we don't know what cuased the big bang, we are not even sure what the big bang was. the only thing we know is what happened after the creation of the universe, not how it created but how it "progressed" after creation. science works by proving things and the big bang theory is unproven. and you don't have to see things directly or show how they themselves work to prove them, observing side effects is most of the times enough.

Btake all the miracles of god for example, like the great flood. people never saw god "conjure" the great flood, they never saw the great flood being created, or the destruction of sodom and gamorah, no one saw god do anything and no one knows where the fiery rocks came from. but still we can deduce it was made by god even though we never saw god actully doing it. because stuff like that can only be explained by god, and the universe as it is now can only be explained by the big bang.

A) I don't know if I can agree that MOST science is from observing side effects, but certainly much is. However, when we do such, theories are on a regular and constant basis changed/eliminated/updated etc. Look at the 1st model of the atom and spontaneous generation for easy examples. People observed something and attempted to account of it's origins and were far off in actuality. The difference, however, is that with the aforementioned such things (the existence of the atom and life) still go on now and can be examined closer, allowing the theories to be eradicated/changed as is necessary- which factually quite a lot when you look at it. However such simply cannot be done with the big bang. It is not going on today and therefore cannot be tested, worked on, improved, confirmed, denied, or anything. If we can be completely off about things we observe today, how much more about something in the past- without a recording of it! Frankly, the Big Bang is a widely-accepted assumption.

B) Such is simply not the case. Gold told Noah he would do the flood. God told Abraham he would rain fire and brimstone on Sodom & Gomorrah. Even beyond that there were many witness. These events have been recorded in the Bible, and are part of history.
{I'd also like to say that when people see something, can't explain it, and assume it to be God's doing they are often wrong. People used to think God suspended the planets, not the laws he set in place. That assumption has obviously been proven wrong, and there are many other examples. In fact, the apostle Paul himself didn't know whether God did something unless God directly told him (see Philemon 15 for ex.).}