During the interview, I was asked what I thought of Swinburne's objection to EAAN. I was interested in reading it because, well, Swinburne's thoughts about this sort of thing are worth reading. Having read it, I can say this. Swinburne is mainly just attacking Plantinga's old 1993 and 2002 versions of EAAN. And this is appropriate because those are the versions of the argument that were available to Swinburne at the time! Fortunately, I don't think that Swinburne's criticisms apply at all to Plantinga's 2011 EAAN version of the argument. So, as far as I can tell, the 2011 EAAN remains unscathed from Swinburne's criticisms.
Regarding objection from simplicity. I think it is likely that creatures with very economical beliefs will survive. You don't need to keep all this complex info, so you spend less resources on it. It is probable that true beliefs have more contents than some random very mere beliefs.
Great discussion. I have some issues with the EAAN. For one thing, both the "proponent" and "opponent" of the argument are endowed with the same cognitive faculties in the scenarios on offer. So it's not the case that the proponent has reliable faculties as a result of their background beliefs and the opponent does not. Either both have reliable cognitive faculties or both do not. It seems to me then that presented with this argument, the opponent can simply ask the proponent whether or not they think their respective faculties are reliable. If so, well then both parties beliefs remain intact and they should move on to discuss other issues. If not, then both parties are rendered inert to further argument, since their reasoning capacities are compromised. What's more, this argument could never lead to a conversion, as the argument does not defeat the belief in naturalism/ evolution. Thus if any naturalist were to buy the argument, they should not longer regard any conclusion they arrive at (including the conclusion that Christianity is true) as true. Put another way: the argument does not establish that naturalism is false, it seeks to show the naturalist that ALL of our cognitive faculties are unreliable (including the theist's). By my lights the argument also doesn't go far enough to establish premise 1. It does not follow from the fact that evolution selects for survivability as opposed to truth that our cognitive faculties are unreliable. The proponent needs to show that evolution is very likely to select for systematically false beliefs, or perhaps that survivability is associated somehow with forming false beliefs. Arguably what we observe is what we would plausibly predict under N&E, namely that it appears our cognitive faculties are reliable in certain domains and unreliable in others. I suppose it's just not clear to me what the argument is supposed to do, I think it would be more fruitful to discuss which view (naturalism v theism in this case) better accounts for cognitive faculties/ reasoning/ etc.
"By my lights the argument also doesn't go far enough to establish premise 1. It does not follow from the fact that evolution selects for survivability as opposed to truth that our cognitive faculties are unreliable. The proponent needs to show that evolution is very likely to select for systematically false beliefs, or perhaps that survivability is associated somehow with forming false beliefs." That's asking for too much! If you'd like to explore this question more, see "Where the Conflict Really Lies", Plantinga, 2011, p. 332 - 333. Before making a final verdict on the argument, it's worth at least studying carefully Plantinga's actual argument rather than just my very brief summary in this interview. Here's an analogy to help get thinking started about things. Suppose I find out that someone at a party only made claims to benefit his popularity. He did not make claims with any eye toward stating the truth. Here's what's clear: I'd have a defeater for any belief I'd form on the basis of any testimonial claim he made about himself. And this is because there wouldn't be a high probability that he was a reliable testifier in that domain. I wouldn't need an argument that he was systematically aiming toward false claims. I'd just need to know that his claims are aimed at popularity rather than truth (even though his claims which benefit his popularity might happen to be true). It's an imperfect analogy. If you really wanted to dig in, just see Plantinga's argument in the aforementioned reference. Also, thank you for listening!
@@andrewmoon1917 Thanks so much for taking the time to respond Dr. Moon. I still have my reservations, but like you said, analogies are always going to have their limits. Though point taken with respect to getting the full context of Plantinga's argument; I appreciate the resource and I'll have to check it out. Cheers
@@chipperhippo I feel Plantinga has to define belief in a non-intuitive way for the argument to work. It's obvious that our actions are based on truth. So he must be talking about beliefs that don't directly inform actions like those of religions.
@@andrewmoon1917 [ I'd just need to know that his claims are aimed at popularity rather than truth (even though his claims which benefit his popularity might happen to be true).] You would only have warrant for suspicion as opposed to complete dismissal and thus not a defeater. This would be on par with taking a person's bias and using that as a declaration that nothing they present can be considered. There is only grounds for suspicion, but not complete dismissal. I will take the time to check out "Where the Conflict Really Lies" to see if I can find any merit to the argument, since as it stands I find the EAAN absurd.
@@chipperhippo Her's another example. Suppose you know there's a machine that is spitting out random sentences. The machine is designed to produce grammatical, well-formed English sentences. But there is absolutely no reason to think the machine is aimed at producing TRUE well-formed English sentences. This is because it picks words at random and throws them together (but at least aims to make the sentences grammatical and well-formed). Now, there's no reason to think the machine is systematically aimed at producing FALSE well-formed English sentences. You just know that it's not systematically selecting for true sentences and otherwise picking sentences at random. It seems that the probability of this sentence being a reliable producer of true sentences, given what you believe about the machine, is low. At this point, I'm ONLY trying to explain how it's reasonable to judge a machine (or faculty or whatever) to have a low probability of reliability, EVEN IF you don't have a good reason to think that the machine is aimed at producing false sentences.
Alright, y'all, I've engaged with some of the comments below. I'll have to stop paying attention to comments now, so I can focus on other things. I'll end by saying that I appreciate people's watching the video and thinking about these things!
If you get a moment, can you suggest a reference for currently known epistemologies. The backdrop issue causing the request, 1. I take it as a fact that there is a continuum of cognitive capacities with it seems all sorts of errors being committed regularly. This is an observation which even if erred sustains the idea of error. (It is on this point that I take the EAAN to be a pejorative, since the state of affairs would seem to apply to all.) 2. I take it as a fact that there is no choice other than to use the cognitive capacity that one has. The net effect being that a global defeater can be understood and simultaneously dismissed as irrational to apply. Irrational in this case being to do nothing due to faults of some sort with what one has to work with OR use what one has in spite of whatever suspected faults.
I’m tempted to say that if (“if”) you could prove premise 1, that P(R | N&E) is low, then it might be better to skip the rest of the EAAN and move on to saying that by contrast P(R | Christianity) is very high or perhaps certain. That doesn’t prove Christianity to be true (an infinity of worldviews can be posited that would entail rational minds), but it would at least serve as evidence for Christianity over naturalistic evolution.
A low probability is still more reasonable than fiction. Further, the low probability given the parade of cognitive issues observed of humanity also makes the most sense.
@@MyContext I recognise that as the "implicit reference" argument. P1. Something something fiction P2. When I said "fiction", I was referring to Christianity P3. Therefore Christianity is fiction. Cognitive issues would be less plausible on a "this world is has no flaws" worldview, which is mutually exclusive to Christianity.
@@MatthewFearnley The EAAN argument is unsound, since it proposes that there is an alternative to naturalism without showing that there is in fact an alternative state. I do consider theism to be fiction (unsubstantiated). So, my commentary is not simply about Christianity even as that is what I am most familiar which still does little as a reference with regard to what any particular Christian believes on a wide range of issues. Putting aside the issue of substantiation, the moment one is proposing an entity to be responsible for our cognitive ability, it then follows that whatever issues of cognitive ability also land on such an entity. The EAAN argument when conjoined with Christianity renders the idea of a God which is responsible for the cognitive state of humanity and wants belief, while having a sea of cognitive tapestries which are in conflict with the idea of God. This is absurd to me. What is your take?
@@MyContext I just want to clarify that I personally don’t want to make any soundness claims about the EAAN itself. My thoughts were just on whether it was the best route to take from the first premise. Depending on what you mean by “fiction”, it’s potentially a stronger claim than simply being false. Stories like Harry Potter are considered fiction, not simply because the events didn’t happen, but because they were specifically written and marketed as fiction, to people who see it in that same way. I do think it would be absurd for a being whose primary purpose is to have us believe that he exists, to allow any lack of belief to arise in any way, whether through hiddenness, or cognitive issues, or any other way. But if his purpose is something different, then it could be that unbelief, or his thoughts, feelings and actions towards unbelief and unbelievers, could be serving towards bringing about something more important. I guess I would think about this whole area as a part of the wider argument about the problem of evil, suffering, and divine hiddenness. I think these could be considered as potential evidence against Christianity, if they can cast doubt over the coherence of the Bible, or show a possible disjunction between how the world is and how the Bible says it is. That in itself wouldn’t interact much with the claim about P(R|N&E) being low, because one would be relative evidence against Christianity, while the other would be relative evidence against naturalistic evolution. So they could each affect the relative plausibility of the two positions, but while each claim, if true, could perhaps “outweigh” the other, I don’t think it would undermine or debunk it.
@@MatthewFearnley My use of the term fiction simply denotes unsubstantiated. However, I do think the idea of a non-contingent intelligent agent is incoherent and thus an impossibility. [I do think it would be absurd for a being whose primary purpose is to have us believe that he exists] Agreed. [But if his purpose is something different, then it could be that unbelief, or his thoughts, feelings and actions towards unbelief and unbelievers, could be serving towards bringing about something more important.] This has the implication that the common theistic notions are false. However, this suffers the same issues as theism in general due to such not being substantiated. [That in itself wouldn’t interact much with the claim about P(R|N&E) being low, because one would be relative evidence against Christianity, while the other would be relative evidence against naturalistic evolution.] The argument is actually moot, since it is the case that humanity makes a lot of cognitive errors. Thus, the question question is what accounts for this state. It is expected on naturalism, but is an absurdity under many claims of theism.
How exactly does someone has a defeater for one's belief of N&E, if P(R|N&E) is low? Wouldn't that be some form of a prosecutor's fallacy indirectly constituting P(N&E|R) being the same as P(R|N&E), when that's not the case at all? Let's suppose, two fair common dice has been thrown and the following hypothesis H and evidence E: H: One dice shows the number “1” and the other dice does not show the number “1” after they both have been thrown. E: The sum of the two shown numbers from the two thrown dice is 3. We’ve got the following sample space Ω = {(1,1); (1,2); (1,3); (1,4); (1,5); (1,6); (2,1); (2,2); (2,3); (2,4); (2,5); (2,6); (3,1); (3,2); (3,3); (3,4); (3,5); (3,6); (4,1); (4,2); (4,3); (4,4); (4,5); (4,6); (5,1); (5,2); (5,3); (5,4); (5,5); (5,6); (6,1); (6,2); (6,3); (6,4); (6,5); (6,6)} (with each result being equally likely - equal distribution) and the following sub sets for hypothesis H = {(1,2); (1,3); (1,4); (1,5); (1,6); (2,1); (3,1); (4,1); (5,1); (6,1)}, and the following sub set for evidence E = {(1,2); (2,1)}. Also we’ve got the following set relation: H∩E = E = {(1,2); (2,1)}. So we’ve got then the following probabilities: p(E|H) = |H∩E|/|H| = 2/10 = 1/5 = 20%, p(H|E) = |H∩E|/|E| = 2/2 = 1 = 100%, p(H) = |H|/|Ω| = 10/36 = 5/18 ≈ 27.78%, with the following relations: [100% = p(H|E)] » [p(E|H) = 20%]. This might be also the case for evidence E := R (our cognitive faculties being reliable) and hypothesis H := N&E (Naturalism and Evolution). So even though P(R|N&E) being low it might be still the case, that P(N&E|R) is high. If so, then why would someone believing in N&E and the Probability Thesis of P(R|N&E) being low have a defeater for N&E, if that person also knows about the *prosecutor's fallacy?*
Good thoughts! The second premise is supported by analogy (e.g., the XX pill case). It's not supposed to depend on a universal probability claim that P(A/B)=P(B/A), which is obviously false, as you say. The paper goes into this. See the stuff about the conditionalization problem.
@@andrewmoon1917 How is the second premise supported by the XX pill case? I think, that the XX pill case demonstrates rather, how the defeater "XX pill" is a self-defeater, since injesting the "XX pill" - defeater of R and also the defeater of all believes B required by R - also defeats the believe B* of "the XX pill being actually taken or injested". Therefore, the "XX pill" is self-defeated defeater.
If Plantinga is suggesting that, on naturalism, our beliefs are the result of biological evolution, then the argument is a straw man since no naturalist would make that claim (rather, the claim is that everything about us, including our beliefs, is a result of a combination of our biology and our environment). If, on the other hand, Plantinga acknowledges that the naturalist position is that our beliefs are formed mainly by our environment, then the argument fails to establish any tension between evolution and naturalism. We don't need to trust our faculties if we can test them empirically. In fact, the success of the scientific method is founded on the realization that we can't trust our reasoning without empirical verification.
36:41 You mean they have a defeater for the conjunction of N+E, P(R|N&E) is low, and Plantinga's argument. I don't see any reason to conclude the first is the one to reject. Since we could replace "N+E" in this argument with a true fact like "drug xxx" or "rocks are hard" or "2+2=4", it seems the third is the one to reject.
there's a nice discussion of this sort of move between Plantinga and William Alston in the 2002 "Naturalism Defeated?" volume, if you're interested in exploring this sort of move. You could read the Alston and then read Plantinga's reply for why the naturalist still gets a defeater for R.
@@andrewmoon1917 But Plantinga himself demonstrates that N+E is not the relevant component when he uses XX in its place. You can never create an argument that doesn't also need to be accepted. Thus the argument itself is always subject to its own defeat.
@@goldenalt3166 Hmm, I thought I understood you, but your most recent comment makes me think that I don't understand you. Perhaps we would have made more progress over a meal or a drink! Unfortunately, that's probably not possible. Have a good day!
@@andrewmoon1917 Agreed that unfortunate. Do you think that the argument works on someone who doesn't believe it? Surely, no-one can rationally accept it if they believe that it would conclude that they aren't rational.
Excellent video! It's too bad the NMS theorems weren't discussed, but I blame the guy who _still_ hasn't published his "A Mental States Approach to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" paper! (It's still just a draft as of this writing!)
Evolution would give you beliefs that benefit survival, not truth? A brain evolved to discern threat or opportunity would have a survival advantage, but these are discernable facts. How are brains abstract, categorise or organize these facts for effective "survival strategies" are very likely to have errors because of bias from life experiences. If a storm gets classed as a threat its unsurprizing that its grouped with Tigers, Snakes and other predators. Categorizing the storm as intelligent is way less important than the truth that the storm is a threat.
This does not go deep enough for my taste. Let us grant that Atheistic Evolution can accidentally produce reliable beliefs which accurately represent empirical truth: that leaves us at that there would be no universal imperative to adhere to empirical truth.
P2 is false. There's no justification why R given only N+E has any relationship to R given all beliefs. The probability a number is even given only that it is prime is low. But if you also know that it is less than 5 that probability goes to 50%.
@@andrewmoon1917 In the video, you said you talked about it in your paper. I read that section of your paper, but I don't see what you're claiming as justification. It seems like you and Plantinga both speak as if there's a temporal priority to your beliefs which I find that completely irrelevant. It also seems that you are conflating "unreliable" with something like a daemon that is completely reliable and trying to deceive you. This is why science uses multiple independent methods when they are investigating a new phenomenon. Every method is somewhat unreliable, but they aren't likely to be unreliable in the same ways.
ah, well, if you can think of a good counterexample to my EO-Solution to the conditionalization problem (as applied to undercutters-while-rebutters), then please feel free to suggest. :)
@@andrewmoon1917 It seems to me that you have things entirely backwards. The older beliefs are less reliable than the newer ones. This idea that you need to believe something first leads to the methodology of rejecting new evidence which seems absurd.
The EAAN argument is absurd given what is observed with regard to the continuum of cognitive development/ability. Further, IF you in fact think that I am cognitively deficient you would in fact be affirming my position, since it is the cognitive issues that dismiss the idea of EAAN and affirms naturalism. The fact of there being atheists and theists is further affirmation of the issue. The continuum of cognitive issues is EXPECTED under naturalism with the improvements of cognitive ability being an aspect of evolution. It is necessarily the case that our actions result in at least our survival and it is on this point that an element of "truth" is necessarily a byproduct of reality even in the most errant notions such as pork being cursed (inherently dangerous). The conclusion of pork being cursed is predicated on ignorance as well as knowledge. The knowledge of some people dying after having eaten pork and the ignorance as to WHY the deaths occurred. Thus, the conclusion of pork being cursed DOES have an element of truth even as the reasoning as to why is false. Our understanding as to what is required to safely consume pork has largely removed the idea of pork being cursed. The continuum of cognitive issues would NOT be expected under most forms of theism given the REQUIREMENT of belief in numerous forms of theism such that having reasonably accurate cognitive facility is required given the dire consequences being presented in various forms of theism such that the idea of a "good" God is immediately dismissed as being an absurdity given the tapestry of linkages often profered. The state of cognitive issues is even more damning to theism in general given that MOST forms of theism is in conflict with other forms of theism such that in aggregate the truth claims of theism in general are being dismissed by theism. I also find the use of the concept of a defeater to be absurd when it is the case that the target of acceptance hasn't been sustained as being the case. One could easily accept Last Thursdayism if it were the case that only a defeater is needed. It is on this point that theism ITSELF is on par with Last Thursdayism, since the very nature of Last Thursdayism precludes any refutation and thus there can be no defeater IF one has accepted Last Thursdayism. It should be noted that knowing the truth is not required to be effective. The only thing required is that the actions taken be effective for the circumstances of the organism, thus it is the case that we have many people whose capacity to understand what is true is limited, but yet they are effective with regard to having favorable outcomes for their life. It is in the effectiveness that concepts such as pragmatically true are born. Emotionally, I find this to be the most boneheaded argument I have ever heard. I suspect it is due to having an expectation of better from philosophers in general with the scope of failure that I find to cause suspicion of deliberate sophistry. However, on naturalism, this is to be expected even if it is I who is dead wrong in some fashion. I guess I should be thankful for an example that I have long sought wherein on either end of the cognitive capacity continuum, my point would still be correct.
@@alanrozario The presupposition of there being something other than naturalism which is then worsened by the failures of theism. The nature of evolution makes P1 inherently ill-formed, since it is the case that cells have no cognition insofar as we know. Further the capacity to make determinations as to whether a proposition is true or not is secondary to the capacity to make use of the knowledge, since IF one has all knowledge but no ability to make use of any of the knowledge, the knowledge is pragmatically worthless. Thus, it is the case that an organism's behavior must be at least pragmatically true with regard to survival even if such is not actually true. This is an issue that has been and is still the case for humanity. Thus, on evolution cognitive ability is a byproduct and will thus have continuum of ability which is what we observe. Granted, this is compatible with the claim of truth determinations not being expected, which truth determinations at some level of evolutionary change is not incompatible. However, the idea of theism is predicated on cognitive capacity which is shown to be an epic failure. Thus, even as truth determination capacities range widely, such ranging on theism is completely untenable (this is why I consider the EAAN to be absurd especially from a philosopher. So, given a low chance on one side and complete incompatibility on the other the low side wins hands down. P2 is another absurdity to me. Why? We OBSERVE a range of cognitive issues and thus at least for those that have sufficient cognitive ability, it shouldn't even be an argument for theism, since it is a declaration of incompetence of various sorts as well as an assault to the idea of good, given the various claims of theism which is predicated on cognitive ability. One need not accept naturalism or evolution to see the parade of cognitive failure. Every WTF moment we observe of the actions and considerations of various others sustain the issue of there being cognitive issues of a wide variety. The issue of human reasoning are many and varied to the point that those declaring themselves to be generally correct could easily just be unaware of how often they have been wrong. The Dunning Kruger Effect is a real issue for most if not all. The most humbling question that I have ever considered "Could I be insane?" with the answer being YES given that those that I would denote as insane don't seem to understand that they are insane. I don't consider anyone to be exempt from this issue for better or worse which is NOT something that one would expect under theism since it completely dismisses the idea of choice as does the understand of determinism which is sustained in the idea of evolution among numerous areas of observation. So, I grant that our reasoning is questionable and it makes sense under evolution and naturalism, but it doesn't make sense under the fiction of theism unless one is claiming an entity that doesn't care, since ANY supposed directive is automatically absurd given the parade of cognitive failures observed of humanity. P3 is only reasonable in the context of the argument, but is otherwise nonsense, since it is the case that we have many reasons to be concerned about our cognitive capacity given the parade of demonstrable failures that occur regularly. P4 is only reasonable IF one uses an argument as a predicate for the state of reality as opposed to the observation that we have many cognitive issues. Thus, it is the case that there is logically the possibility of error even as it is likely the case that MOST don't see that this is an issue ever present for it would seem ALL OF US with no basis to presume anyone is exempt. It is what sustains the process of science as being a generally good method by which to review EVERY claim about reality with any claim which cannot be shown to be likely a product of imagination (like theism) as opposed to being an aspect of reality. --- Here's the hidden argument... *Cognitive ability is from some X whether such is denoted as God or whatever.* This is pure assertion until such is SHOWN to be an aspect of reality. So, while one can argue that our cognitive ability is erred as it is is only incidental under evolution, the horrid state of our cognitive ability is fatal to most forms of theism given the demands often entailed. So, the choice becomes low potential versus absurd assertion - low potential wins.
@@alanrozario I updated my comment for more detail, since it is the case that humanity does have a wide variety of cognitive ability. This point of fact is an issue for many forms of theism as is the variety of theism.
@@MyContext you really, really don't understand Christianity, and much less all religions, I'd you think a variety of cognitive capabilities aren't predicted by theism. The one thing I agree with that you've written is that you're not sure if you're insane. That I can understand, as the jumbled mess of thoughts you explicated are an indication of a troubled mind. One that is seeking to understand, but doing so in a way that is flailing about thinking that he's saying something profound. Unfortunately it's not profound, it's ignorant. You should read outside of your tradition. You might find that your assumptions are completely baseless.
@@VACatholic If you think my comment a jumble (or that I am simply ignorant), then you should be asking questions for clarification (or addressing whatever point of ignorance that you are claiming of me). The fact that you are simply attempting to attack me supports the idea that you do in fact understand and are are upset about my comment. I would suggest you point out an issue, since anything less strikes me as pointless.
The EAAN argument is unsound. The argument proposes an alternative to naturalism without there being any alternative shown. Thus, until something other than naturalism is shown there is nothing to consider. Yes, I know we have various labels for a variety of notions proposed as an alternative to naturalism, but those proposed alternatives have not been shown to be an aspect of reality and thus are not rational options. Humanity has a lot of issues with making good truth determinations. This state of affairs is consistent with what would be expected under evolution and naturalism. So, there is no actual issue. The argument is currently just an absurdity.
Actually, the argument purports to show that a person cannot rationally believe the conjunction of N&E. It doesn't aim to show that naturalism is false or even probably false. The argunent is that anybody who sees that the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable is low (or inscrutable) on N&E has a defeater for the belief that their cognitive faculties are reliable. An undefeated defeater. Nothing you said did anything to harm EAAN.
@@gustavgus4545 The argument being unsound dismisses EAAN. Again, the argument proposes that there is an alternative to naturalism, but such would need to be shown. The fact of humanity making many cognitive errors regularly makes the argument moot. Since, it is the case that our cognitive ability is questionable. Thus, the question as to what accounts for our state is what is left.
@@MyContext It's not really a deductive argument, so it's not a question of whether it is "sound. " Anyway, theism is clearly an alternative to naturalism. Not an alternative that everybody likes or agrees with, but an alternative nonetheless. But why suppose that a specific alternative is even needed to argue against naturalism? A person could simply be a skeptic and say, "I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality consists of,, and perhaps nobody does. All I know is that a person who sees that the probability of cognitive reliability on N&E is low or inscrutable cannot rationally accept naturalism. So maybe some other alternative will one day prove preferable that that we haven't thought of yet..." But then,, Why not equally say that any argument a person gives against theism is flawed because it presupposes an alternative to theism. You're presupposing that naturalism is the default position. But why think such a thing? A theist could just as easily take theism to be true by default.
@@gustavgus4545 Until theism is shown to be an actual something, it is not an alternative. This makes the argument unsound. The arguments against theism are redundant due to theism being unsubstantiated. Regardless of the argument, it is the case that humanity does have cognitive issues. Are you going to claim that we don't? Thus putting aside theism being fiction, we are left with what accounts for our cognitive issue. Are you arguing that theism is responsible for our cognitive issues?
@@MyContext Theism is a worldview, the same as naturalism is. Do you think "naturalism" is also a nothing? Lol I am arguing that the conjunction of N&E gives us good reason to doubt the general reliability of our cognitive faculties, even about mundane matters, much less philosophical or scientific ones. There can be and are cognitive issues on theism as well to be sure (at least, I don't know any version of theism which entails cognitive infallibility for on our parts)...But I don't see anything in any theistic view I know of which entails that our cognitive faculties are GENERALY unreliable, or which provides a defeater for the idea that they are. I do, however, see that involved in N&E. And that is a problem for the naturalist.
What an asinine argument. The conclusion is that if E&N are true, then I could be wrong about somethings I believe. Tell me something I don’t already know. Lol
AMEN brother Moon Atheism is self defeating and silly defense of a LACK OF BELIEFS 😂. Thanks for uploading this video dude I'm just glad that more people like us are still doing work for the furtherance of The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ 🙏❤️. This has nothing and everything to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't. I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict. Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers. Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of but not macro or micro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word. Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.
