This channel promotes Christian apologetics from a presuppositional perspective. However, it will often cover theological, and philosophical issues as well.
First time I heard this was from that dude TJump. It’s just random nonsense where at the very best, even if you grant existence, all you get is “how things appear to me” and no language to even communicate it
I've never heard such bullshit come out of one person's mouth in such a short period. Lisle is a delusional, ignorant creationist who spreads misinformation and lies. He is a doctor of nothing. He does not believe in science nor any proven evidence that opposes his nonsensical views. He is blinded by the truth because he believes in the bible, which in the 21st Century has been proven to be a collection of myths and fairytales not to be taken seriously. We now know the Universe contains trillions of galaxies, so to claim some godly being created the Universe can be summed up in two words, 'preposterous' and 'fanciful'. And to claim the bible has evidence is a lie. There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists. Regarding the great flood, there was no flood. We are talking water of immeasurable height, the height of Mt Everest immersing the entire world. The Earth could not sustain the weight of such a volume of water; this would cause the Earth to implode into oblivion. The videos below PROVE this, something the bible cannot do. Can you handle the truth? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vWZtbZGtiGA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-24WbQkRx2_8.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-i0J5WMmykEs.html This video describes the immense size of the Universe that you claim god created. What bullshit. Wake up people. You are being fed misinformation and lies, which is what creationists do best. Below are two credible videos regarding the size of the Universe. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pSHVbLPWA2.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BD0r2Xfgh_E.html How dare you discredit Charles Darwin. Lisle you preach bullshit with such a smug attitude. Be educated by someone who has genuine credentials, unlike yourself who preaches pseudoscience. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yolq3d421-c.html
The bible, which in the 21st Century, has been proven to be a collection of myths and fairytales not to be taken seriously. The videos below tell the truth about the so called great flood. Can you handle the truth? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vWZtbZGtiGA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-24WbQkRx2_8.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-i0J5WMmykEs.html
HONEST QUESTIONS: If the proof of Christianity lies in the fact that no other worldviews provide the justification to make sense of anything, where does the internal witness of the Holy Spirit come into play regarding our knowledge of Scripture? For instance, would it be accurate to say that our knowledge of the truth of Scripture is due to the internal witness of the Holy Spirit? If so, would our ultimate standard then be our sense data (our ability to sense the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) rather than the Bible itself?
@@moseseach7258 this is an excellent question. I’m currently not in the position to answer in depth as I am out with my wife. However, perhaps I will cover this question in a video or respond to your comment at my closest convenience. Thanks for the question :-)
Lol I thought you liked worldview analysis eli? Your worldview is called the fairytale Christian worldview whilst my worldview is called REALITY! Why did you run from the question little boy? I asked if you can show your god exists in REALITY? NO question begging there little boy! Can you do it or not? Are you gonna fail AGAIN?
Lol I thought you liked worldview analysis eli? Your worldview is called the fairytale Christian worldview whilst my worldview is called REALITY! Why did you run from the question little boy? I asked if you can show your god exists in REALITY? NO question begging there little boy! Can you do it or not? Are you gonna fail AGAIN?
Lol I thought you liked worldview analysis eli? Your worldview is called the fairytale Christian worldview whilst my worldview is called REALITY! Why did you run from the question little boy? I asked if you can show your god exists in REALITY? NO question begging there little boy! Can you do it or not? Are you gonna fail AGAIN?
Lol I thought you liked worldview analysis eli? Your worldview is called the fairytale Christian worldview whilst my worldview is called REALITY! Why did you run from the question little boy? I asked if you can show your god exists in REALITY? NO question begging there little boy! Can you do it or not? Are you gonna fail AGAIN?
Lol I thought you liked worldview analysis eli? Your worldview is called the fairytale Christian worldview whilst my worldview is called REALITY! Why did you run from the question little boy? I asked if you can show your god exists in REALITY? NO question begging there little boy! Can you do it or not? Are you gonna fail AGAIN?
(19:21) "There's only two ways of living. You can live as if Jesus Christ is the lord of the universe, or you can live as if you are the lord of the universe." This is exactly the sort of bald assertion that presups get criticized for. Numerous alternatives exist to this false dichotomy, most notably the typical atheist position that there is no lord of the universe at all.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 50.00. Absolutely staggeringly dishonest. So your answer to me is a resounding NO! You cant justify your Christian worldview in anything other than the Christian worldview! The way of justifying the Christian worldview is by presenting credible evidence that your god exists! And you sure cant do that can you!!!! YOU LOSE!
I'm afraid you claiming you believe it rather than you being dishonest just won't wash eli. I.E. You're supposedly a teacher and your familiar with philosophical logical fallacies such as non sequiturs. You know that presupposing a god because you know you can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence is certainly not evidence, and me being incapable of justifying things that i dont need to justify that you use a god of the gaps argument for does not mean everything in your worldview is true especially the bit that says an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and simultaneously read the thoughts of everyone in that universe popped into existence without a cause! That would be a TOTAL NON SEQUITUR!.
I'm afraid you claiming you believe it rather than you being dishonest just won't wash eli. I.E. You're supposedly a teacher and your familiar with philosophical logical fallacies such as non sequiturs. You know that presupposing a god because you know you can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence is certainly not evidence, and me being incapable of justifying things that i dont need to justify that you use a god of the gaps argument for does not mean everything in your worldview is true especially the bit that says an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and simultaneously read the thoughts of everyone in that universe popped into existence without a cause! That would be a TOTAL NON SEQUITUR!..
10. 40. Errrr....Nope eli! That's not true but thanks for the latest total non sequitur! Damn right I disagree with your ridiculous baseless assertions but I have no requirement to provide an alturnative to your gibberish!
8.00.....You mean eli blatantly lied ehhh? Claimed he knew my mind better than I do cos your allready totally discredited book says so! Wow you christards are to arrogant and dishonest for words!
I didn’t watch the video and I didn’t read through all the comments, but I’ve been in enough conversations about this with professing Christians that still believe that God use the big bang and evolution to bring things about, but the problem with that is death, because if it is an old earth, that means death came about before sin, unless you believe the Dino’s sinned, Which would mean that God is responsible for death and not man and that’s where the problem lies in regards to old earth belief.
So if I’m understanding you correctly: Logic is grounded in the Christian god. So an atheist who uses logic has a conflict between their second and first order beliefs. However while you are accurately saying this is a contradiction within your worldview this hasn’t shown that the atheist knows god exists. It would be like someone who didn’t believe water was H2O. They drink and bathe in it and we can explain that if the molecular structure was different they wouldn’t be able to do that, but believing some other metaphysics of water they refuse to agree that water is H2O. So they are living within a contradiction but that doesn’t mean that we can say they know they are living within the contradiction. Seems like we often rely on knowledge of things more immediate to our experience without knowledge of what underpins them so I don’t think your argument defends your claim to understand the atheist psychology.
With all due respect, the answer to all the haters is simple. Read the book of Romans, and hopefully, you'll start to understand. If that doesn't work, read it again and again and again until it starts to make sense. Whenever it finally makes sense, go get baptized.
23 minute Mark Eli says Calvinists want people to go through big Theological Tests to get Baptised. I used to be a Calvinist. Most reformed churches Re Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Church, Presbyterian Church PCA , Continental Reformed Church, United Reformed church. They Baptise Infants. Only "Reformed Baptists" really have any requirement. And thats because they are Credo Baptists.
I Like Keith Foskey but at close to the 11 minute mark. He said alot of young people leave they church because they are not converted. He is a Calvinist wearing a big 5 Point Calvinist shirt. Im not Calvinist. But he knows if you are not "Elect" per Calvinism no ammount of Church attendance, Evangelism, Sunday School will make you accept Christ as your Savior. In Calvinism God before the Foundation of the World determines by Divine Decree who will be saved. Why would a Calvinist be concerned about Non Elect people attending Church.
My question is even if Jesus came 2000 years ago, why did he return to heaven after rising from the dead. He could have stayed here for thousands of years which would be a sort of evidence that he is maybe divine. Imagine seeing pictures of him from the late 1800s in the year 2024.
Yahweh can rewrite physics at any minute. So there is no way to know that the future will be like the past. So Christianity completely fails when it comes to induction. And yes, Yahweh could have been lying when he said he can't lie.
Christianity has a problem with induction. An all powerful god can rewrite physics in any minute. Yahweh could be a liar. He could have been lying when he wrote that he cannot lie.
Would you please have another talk with TJump. So when you setup a time with TJump on the first debate, for some reason you set it up at a time where you were really limited in time and had to abandon the conversation early. Yeah right. If you can't defeat TJump, then Eli, if you were ethical, you would start to doubt your own position. But you don't want to be a teacher any more. You want to do this for money. Eli, you are a coward. Finish your debate with TJump.
Im watching thisway after the Fact. You had a Great Panel of Guests. I Remember when i saw you on Pinecreeks channel. Eli i thought you were a Presbyterian when you were on Pinecreek. You now are attending a Non Denom/ Reformed Baptist. Did your Beliefs change?
Eli, if you are serious about what you are doing, please have a debate with TJump where you have sufficient time and don't need to quickly run out like in the first one. It would seem to me that you realized the game you are playing wouldn't work on TJump. It would seem rather than be a teacher, you want to play games to make an income. Eli, you are a huckster. Now regarding Joel, I think he is actually dumb enough to believe what he is saying.
T-Jump once debated some awful guy named "Darth Dawkins" who was claiming to be a presuppositionalist. I don't care about DD. Rather, notice what T-Jump says in his opening, (my paraphrase from memory): He claimed to be able to "justify" logic, intelligibility, etc. Then, speaking very quickly, he began to waffle between talk of "justification" and talk of "grounding." He claimed to "ground" logic in "I think, therefore I am" (Descartes' famous Cogito). He light-speed tosses this out, but let's put on the breaks and think about it. How would "I think, therefore I am" ... "justify" ... logic? Presumably, here, we mean that we can reason from it to the conclusion: "my beliefs about logical laws are true" somehow. What would that argument look like? P1 - If I experience a phenomenon (in this case: experience of an "I"), then my beliefs about the phenomenon are true. P2 - I experience an "I". Conclusion: My beliefs about my "I" experience are true. ...but this is an obvious non-sequitur. (As many philosophers over the years have pointed out, like Bertrand Russell, Kierkegaard, Sellars, et al. On the face of it: we are mistaken about our experiences all the time. The cogito, for whatever its other merits, fares no better on this.) Since "I think, therefore I am" fails to justify T-Jump's beliefs about logic (or anything else, for that matter), he's impotent against presuppositionalism. How am I wrong?
Is there anything that shows more hatred than wanting to force more births if you believe in hell? When asked about forcing more people to be born knowing that more people will suffer eternal torment...@TheGuy who is a christian by the way, said, and I quote: "Well logically, with more people being born there would obviously be many going to eternal torment. There's nothing wrong with that since they are the ones making the choice when they have another option. If they don't like the idea of eternal torment then they are nuts for choosing that road." Nothing showcases the lie of christ and the moral bankruptcy of forced birth extremist more so than their belief in hell. But Pro-life Christian's hatred for humanity is so great they want to force women to give birth so more people end up suffering for eternity in hell when they die. If hell is real then abortion is the most humane thing that could ever happen to any potential human being ever! The risk of eternal torment if true will always outweigh bringing any finite life into this world. So how insane is a religion that makes human extinction the best option to human suffering? So the question was answered by @TheGuy...christians don't care about the little babies who will be eternally tormented when they grow up and die. And this flawed thinking by the so called pro-life christian movement is what makes them so dangerous and showcases their hypocrisy. They think they are moral but are far from it! They place the worth of a non-conscious being over the well being of every human on the planet. You see this in their support of Trump's authoritarianism, supporting those that do nothing about climate change or gun violence, supporting those that do nothing about America's unsustainable health care costs, supporting those that give tax breaks to billionaires at the expense of the majority of Americans and forcing raped 10 year old little girls to give birth. The pure hatred for all conscious life is the foundation of christians as shown by their real world actions and beliefs.
Your mistake is thinking that anyone who ends up in Hell is a sort of loss for God or that their journey to Hell is shameful to Him. Rather, their going to Hell glorifies Him somehow or other, which is great news for abortion doctors since that's where they're all headed.
@@KEvronista I mean, this is hard to respond to since you have not offered an example as to why creation is incoherent. On face value there is nothing logically incoherent about creation so perhaps you can provide some context. I mean, I can just as well say that the idea that there was no creation is incoherent, prove me wrong. That of course wouldn’t be helpful unless I provided context for saying that. Thanks
Regardless what the Lord's church opposition says, the fact remains that Jesus only built one church just like He said He was going to do. Matthew 16:18
Here's an example of what I was getting at in my question about Modus Tollens: 1 - Assume Christianity is false. 2 - If ~C --> no intelligible human experience. (If Christianity is false, then there's no intelligible human experience. This is the claim of the presup thesis. Christians believe this because it's ostensibly taught in Scripture. Moreover, no atheist can falsify 2. Every failed attempt to falsify 2 is just one more demonstration of the truth of the Christian thesis.) 3 - There is intelligible human experience. Conclusion: ~ ~ C. (Christianity is true). ---- Since 2 can never be empirically verified, it becomes a polemical challenge we Christians believe on authority and where the repeated demonstration of its truth is the engine which drives the entire polemical method.
If you don't mind a comment from the peanut gallery, I think this formulation just makes it more complicated without adding anything helpful. The more complex "If ~C then ~X "is equivalent to the simpler "if X then C", and furthermore you end up with a tricky double negative in the conclusion. Why add all those extra nots? It just makes it harder to process, and you have to add the needless (and potentially difficult) starting step of assuming that C is false. So much simpler and more direct to say "if X then C; X; therefore C".
@@babyfoot- We can arrange arguments differently for different reasons. A general idea I've had is that using modus ponens is more clear for illustration and teaching, where as using modus tollens (as Bahnsen always did) was more helpful polemically. Stating it the way I did above, I think, helps showcase that our methodology isn't meant to be an "argument" like the typical classical style arguments for God (cosmological, ontological, etc.,). Rather, it's more like a scientific theory we have that we test (and subsequently try to demonstrate) via polemics. We could set up an "argument" for the truth of electromagnetism in this same way, and be equally as unable to empirically verify it - yet every time we flip on a light switch, we're demonstrating the truth of the theory (even if not proving it). I started thinking of Van Til this way after reading atheist Alex Rosenberg's work (as well as Graham Oppy). Thinking through their position on theories and how we prove scientific theories (or any theory for that matter) helped me think of Van Til in a different (and I think: more accurate) light.
@@Scott_Terry Maybe it's just an aesthetic difference that we have, but in my experience adding complexity to an argument never helps convince anyone, unless the intention is to bamboozle them and get them to abandon their thinking faculties. It's like using big words when small ones will do. Even when the bamboozling works, the effect is only temporary and wears off once the recipient starts thinking privately, away from the verbal bling. That seems to me to be weak argumentation, whether polemical in spirit or not. What you say about a "scientific" perspective on Van Til is interesting. It's a good way of looking at it, and neatly undermines the whole "shifting the burden" critique. We critics of PA will have to find another avenue of attack. Nicely done :)
@@babyfoot- and conversely, presups from pop-level to professional, are known for being opaque, overly-verbose, and not always arguing with honest intent, so I want to avoid that if at all possible. I'd like to think my own motives have always been intellectually honest but...well...we're all just human... :D
@@Scott_Terry Not only presups. It's a common human foible and many fall into the trap. I trust your motives, Scott, that's why I like engaging with you. I also think you're mature enough to take a little friendly chiding from me :)
