Apologist Frank Turek "Q+A Objections to Christianity" 

Apologetics have an astronomical affect on my faith in Christ, I love it!

I love seeing Cliff taking notes. Learning from each other is good. Iron sharpens iron!!!!

Thank you, folks...for this beautiful encounter between 2 of my favorite apologetic people, I hope you gather together for a conference in a University....it will be a mind blowing. God bless you Dr Frank Pastor Cliff and Pastor Steward.

Man I love these guys and I’m so thankful for them they have kept my faith strong and I couldn’t be more thankful for these guys and my lord and savior.

Epic crossover!!!

The crossover we absolutely needed

How does this only have 12k . This is my first time listening to frank turek . Someone i can learn from. Such a brilliant man along with stuart and cliffe

I learned about Frank from cliffe. Frank really has his info organized and a strong delivery with visuals and descriptions. We learn from Frank Turek about things that need to be thought through by every person. Dr Turek is matter of fact In his approach and not so preachy or deep in scripture. We get that where we want to if we want. Turek helps you think in a more sensible way about the information.

Jesus is Lord

Doesn't get much better than this!

Hi Cliff and Stewart a big thank you for interviewing Frank as I love his style and wit God bless you all . Brian from Dublin Ireland

What a collaboration!! Hope there's more in the near future. God bless!!

I am a big fan of all of these gentlemen. Keep ip the good work

Unreal discussion boyz:). Three of my favourites right here. Thank you for this.

Hope to see you guys again in a stream! God bless all of you guys!

Men, this was AMAZING!! So much information. I forgot how Knowledgeable Frank Turek is

Two of my favorite apologists, Frank and Cliffe

HOW DID I MISS THIS LIVE STREAM?! Frank is the man!

It seems that what’s really being achieved by scholars like Frank, Cliffe and Stewart, who are obviously intelligent and capable apologists, is the achievement of strengthening the body of Christ. Sure there’s the fun of sharpening ones wits, going toe to toe with those who oppose Jesus Christ, but in the greater scheme of things, the believing bystander learns a thing or two. And consequently, like young eagles watching and waiting, they too eventually take to the skies soaring like their wise parents do.

I would like to have cliff, his son, frank turek, John Lenox, James Tour, Hugh Ross to sit down together for Q&A.

So cool to see you guys got him on your podcast

Awesome information! Thank you!!

That was fun! Enjoyed very much. Good job.

really interesting... thank you..

Very interesting discussion. Praise JESUS the KING of kings and LORD of lords.

Awesome stream! Praise the Lord. 😄 51:20 is a great summary of why Christianity is rational. 👍🏼

I love this!! 😀♥️🙏🏽

Awesome !

I love the fact that Cliff seems to be writing down everything Frank is talking about

Absolutely brilliant what a stream just found out about Frank going to look up his books

I LOVE THIS ❤❤❤

found yall from MDD. great insights

Great stream❤️

I love all of these guys!

Based crossover, based conversation, based men because they’re not concerned with themselves but God and glorifying Him.

Some Note Taking: 12:25 (Free Will/Truth), 13:12 (Reasoning), 14:23 (Reasoning), 17:11 (Objectivity) 18:26 (Free Will, Conciseness Is Not An Illusion), 20:32 (Universe Is Fine Tuned), 30:27 (The Atheist Argument Problem), 35:40 (Moral Objectivity), 40:56 (Why God Created People If He Knows That They'll Commit Evil), 51:27 (Why is Christianity Rational)

That's amazing

Both are great people.

This is the best crossover ever....

The most epic apologetic scholars since C.S. Lewis. Absolutely love this.

My two favourite people

I love every one.

These are powerhouse soldiers in the ranks of the Almighty

I thought i was the only one who noticed that most people would rather save their dog than human being

Brooooooo... This is dope

Can Turek's ph.d be found online?

43:20 - someone help me out! As a newfound Christian, I do still struggle with the predetermined issue. Yes, God doesn't CAUSE us to not choose Him, but by Him creating us in the first place, isn't that the cause for our free will? If He created us knowing we would say no to Him, isn't that indirectly setting us up? I'm struggling with this!

Dream Team

❤

right sychological state our sychological state doesnt have to be true because we believe it your right

Frank exposes the nonsense of atheism daily!

👍

Iron sharpening Iron

❤🙏❤❤🙏

53:50

Ends with "Frank, you're an animal !!" Priceless ! hahahahahaha

Why does cliffe look like he’s watching the TV 😂😂

8:50 Jesus changed locations for our sins :)

Q for Turek: If babies weren't "made in the image of god" would torturing them "for fun" be okay? Turek's hypothetical is a prime example of the sort of lunacy that theistic thinking instills in its adherents. This rank appeal to emotion is but one of the many logical fallacies and inconsistent statements to be had in the the last 30 minutes of this disjointed, tired screed. It would take me days to dissect them all. If anyone is interested in the counter arguments I suggest reading Malcolm Murray's 'The Atheist's Primer' where he methodically dismantles the moral argument, the fine tuning argument and explains how the problem of suffering IS in fact the single biggest defeater for theism in general and xianity in particular. What I want to point out here is Turek's and Knecthle's repeated use of atheism as a sort of counter narrative to their brand of theism. (i.e. christianity) Atheism is nothing more than the conclusion that the probability for gods is so unlikely as to be irrelevant. And that should be the end of the matter. But atheism seems to drive apologists from all religions mad. And the reason for this extends beyond the fact that the atheist's arguments against gods is stronger than theism's arguments for gods. Atheists restrict their arguments to sound reasoning and observable fact while the theist is handicapped by a dearth of definitive evidence and is burdened with contradictory and dissimilar theological opinions. As a consequence the theist is forced to look beyond their subjectively inspired doctrines and look to things like the natural world or philosophical hypotheticals to attempt to arrive at that which they so far have not succeeded in doing: proving god. Science is against them. The historical record, where it exists, is against them. Archaeology is against them. They lose on every front and must resort to ad hoc reasoning and rank sophistry. They are to be pitied. Broadly speaking, in my opinion, there are two classifications of atheist: those who don't give a hoot about their atheism and live their lives without worrying about the god crowd confident in their decision that the amount of time required to investigate the issue is just not worth it. I envy them. The second class consists of former theists: those who have taken the time to honestly study and investigate the claims of their faith as against the counter-apologetic argument and have concluded that de-conversion is not only the logical choice, but the moral choice as well. I argue that these sort of atheists are the ones that drive the Turek's and the Knecthle's of this world crazy. They see in this class of atheist a legitimate threat to their world of privilege and special status. People are de-converting from their faith by the bushel; this is a statistical fact and it shows no sign of abating. The truth or lack thereof about theism-in particular the claims made by Christians and Muslims (yes de-conversion is happening in Islam as well) simply cannot withstand the scrutiny of close examination. Atheism is growing in the united states not because of a trend to immorality and solipsism, but quite the opposite: the growing realization that to remain tethered to a faith that openly and unashamedly reveals itself to be mean, intolerant, vengeful, factually impaired, anti-science and rife with paranoia is about an immoral and selfish a decision as one can make in life, perhaps even worse than "torturing babies for fun" as Turek intones, because no sane person would ever torture a baby, for fun or otherwise, even perhaps under threat of personal harm to oneself or to another. Absent the horrors of conflict and war, (which is in itself but another form of trauma) it takes a demented mind or a mind made demented by trauma to perpetrate such an act. But there exists one state of mind absent trauma or war which succeeds quite well at making a person "torture a baby for fun" and that would be theism itself, as in the case of Abraham readying the knife to slay his son, to pick but one gruesome example from the goat herders guide to the universe if you believe such nonsense, or hijackers boarding a plane to murder all aboard regardless of their age, to pick a contemporary one, which is not nonsense, but historical fact, as is child sex abuse by priests and by evangelical pastors the world over, or the torture and occasional murder of children in christian run "homes" (see Death By Civilization in the Atlantic about Indian boarding schools; See the Vice Article on Christian reform schools; See story about Circle of Hope Girls' Ranch; see Daily Beast piece on Blue Creek Academy; see Washington Post piece on Catholic Schools for Native Americans; see Freedom From Religion Foundations Black Collar crime blog in their Freethought Today newspaper) To name but a few! Atheism isn't the problem but atheism may very well lead us to solutions.

Frank should review his older debates with hitchens on you tube. We givr life our own meaning..

Hey Frank, why you look so serious . Please smile .

Frank has the same lines of arguments, but atheists cant counter it, even today.

yeah i dont trust my senses as an athiest i think am the only honest athiest

Then just add mar mari and Jordan Peterson and you got the best collaboration

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Dose anyone know the plural of Moron ?

Next 10 minutes of debunking: Free will v determinism. It's not binary. Compatibilism is the obvious choice. Clearly human beings have free will but not always. Most people are compatibilists on the topic as judged by their actions, even if they're not aware that are compatibilists. It's being able to see beyond the illusion of free will-the belief that EVERY choice is free-that trips people up. Knowing or discerning those situations where the choice was not entirely free. This is the very reason why the law sets up different charges depending upon the state of mind or the perpetrator. Did the accused have Mens Rea? Compare Murder 1-pre-mediated vs. manslaughter-without malice. This argument is just an apologist soft step backwards into the necessary doctrine of original sin. ( Because without original sin there's no need for a savior) Reasoning has nothing to do w/ determinism. Reasoning is a tool humans came up with to ascertain that which is true from that which is not. Determinism says all actions occur beyond human will. But the one has nothing to do with the other. Reasoning is an ability, a tool; determinism is a philosophical doctrine that may or may not be right. Marrying the two is incorrect. Nevertheless, theists who can't even prove the existence of god insist that reasoning was a god's invention? This is rank appeal to religious emotion-a logical fallacy, which can be ignored. On the issue of morality: to assert that morality needs a god to be objectively true is demonstrably false. One only need examine the history of ancient cultures to read how morality evolved within them according to culture and custom. Morality is not static; it evolves as the culture evolves. If you don't believe this all you need do is examine the Old Testament's condoning of slavery and compare that to modern attitudes concerning such. If god is the source of objective morality then why did his attitude apparently change regarding slavery? Either god is a moral moron or humanity makes its choices as to what is and isn't moral? Pick your poison. But don't attribute the change in attitude to Jesus who never outlawed the practice but certainly had ample opportunity to do so and spare the world untold misery and needless suffering and death. Take god out of this equation it all become quite obvious and simple. Moral thinking evolves as humanity advances. This can be read in the arc of history. No gods required. "Would it be right to murder an innocent man to make an angry mob happy? " Shocking that neither Knechtle had the courage to utter not only the obvious answer, "NO" but the corollary: It would also not be right to murder a guilty man to make an angry mob happy!!! Despite all their self-righteousness neither one could answer this hypothetical. SHAME! And completely disproves Turek's assertion that there need be a standard of morality. You guys purport to have morality in spades yet you don't even know how to answer a simple moral question! Turek is using "truth" as an equivocation fallacy. When Tureks speaks of truth here he means that which is good or beneficent or godly. Philosophy's definition of truth is that which is not provably false. This is what the scientific method is built upon. Truth used as an equivocation is a logical fallacy may be ignored. Will return to refute the next 10 minutes of this charade.

I saw a debate with you and Aron Ra and TJump. Why do you claim to know their thoughts, intetions and feelings better than they themselves do? Why do christians often do this to atheists? Like: "you are just angry at god, or you are angry at the church, or you are denying the truth, or you are borrowing your morality from us". It doensn't help the conversation between theists and atheists. It is only insulting, disrespecting and ad hominem attacks. Why not try do understand the other person, honestly and humbly? Only then can you actually have a real discussion. I am curious to know the logic behing this.

There is no known evidence substantiating the historicity of Jesus.

i don't think the ressurection is the thing that creates our belief in God. i would say that Bible is the ultimate primer of pure good and pure evil. If purity exist it can only be something shown to us and outside of us. that is exactly what was shown in Jesuses life and death on cross. Purity, pure goodness revealed throuh life and final perfect act of love!

To answer one of Franks opening questions: Q: Are miracles possible?. No. I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

Turek. Snake oil extraordinare.

Did Frank Turek just compare Jesus to a dog?😐

Right out of the gate! Wrong. Atheism and non-belief is statistically and significantly increasing particularly in the U.S where we are on track to be where Europe is now regarding religiosity only it's happening at a rate far faster here. De-conversion is occurring the world over across all religions. Not surprisingly Xianity is increasing in countries with higher birth rates. In developed nations Xianity is on decline the smarter apologists know this. So there's lie number 1. It's not up to atheists to tell YOU whether or not god exists. That burden belongs to the theist. It's also not up to you to define what other people think or what their worldview is. People are free to choose and to evolve in their thinking. Dismissing the journey that a person may have taken from belief to non-belief as merely a psychological state is offensive. I suggest you listen to the stories of de-conversion from people damaged by religious belief. Listen to how they unwound the tangle of lies and the amount of reading and study that went in to their de-conversion process. Nevertheless, the only reason why atheism offends you is because of a nagging suspicion that your worldview is not supported by the evidence. That's number 2. An empty tomb is not proof of a resurrection. Note the series of if/then statements. The more priors one needs to prove a claim the less likely that claim is to be true. That's just a statistical reality regardless of the claim. The gospel of Peter talks about the resurrection of Jesus. It claims that jesus grew to the size of a giant and that as he walked down the street a cross bounced behind him. No modern Christian believed such nonsense yet the Gospel of Peter was among the most popular in the first centuries of xianity. If we don't believe bouncing crosses and giant jesus are possible, why should we believe in a world wide eclipse (an astronomical impossibility) or masses dead people coming from the tombs (with no extra-biblical proof to corroborate this) or the temple curtain was rent (with no extra-biblical proof to corroborate this) or that there was an earthquake so powerful that it split rocks (with no non-biblical corroboration in the historical records)? That's number 3. Yes, we shouldn't trust what we think or what our senses say. That's why we invented tools to help us: Logic and Scientific method. These are the ONLY methods we have to ascertain truth and they work because they help us eliminate everything that is false or not possible leaving only that which is very highly probable. Only then does knowledge become reliable fact. The claims of apologists do not meet this standard. To accept apologists claims requires not a short formula or repeatable experiment but rather additional, often ad hoc, rationalizations. Now i ask: why would a god so hide the evidence as to make it improbable to be ascertained with the only tools he knew people have at their disposal to test for truth? Either that god is incompetent or that god is moral monster. Picky your poison xian soldier. That's number 4. If you can't trust "arguments leading to atheism" then how can one trust arguments which lead to theism? Clearly, we use the identical methodology and yet we come to vastly different "conclusions" The problem here is that atheists do not purport to know with certainty that gods do not exist, they only conclude that it's highly improbable that any do. Theists conclude the opposite but the evidence they use to reach that conclusion is merely anecdotal, hearsay, un-corroborated and most unreliable of all: from personal experience or out of desire for it to be true. That's number 5 and I'm only through the first 10 minutes. I shall return.

Lying by withholding. There are NO extant manuscripts of Hegisippus. We only learn about Hegisippus from the writings of Eusebius, who lived in the 4 century, and is regarded as a notoriously unreliable historian. He embellishes his works and is clearly not objective. Setting aside the argument that James reference in Josephus is an interpolation, the fact is that the entire passage deals not with James, but with Ananus, recently appointed high priest who according to Josephus was regarded as "bold in temper" "insolent" and "rigid in judging offenders." (A.J. 20.199) Here is the reference in context from AJ 20.200: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." (A.J. 20.200) "but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;" Catch that? Why would Jewish citizens come to the aid of a Christian? And not just any Christian a but a blood relative of the new religion's founder? The execution of a chrisitan makes no sense in the context of the story. There is no statement of why James was being executed, whether he had the opportunity to recant if he was being executed for his beliefs (which would disqualify him as a martyr) or why Jewish citizens came to his defense. Lastly, there is NO further reference to James or whether the stoning ever actually transpired. Moreover, the rest of the section is not clear as to whether Ananus was removed because of the judgment he rendered against this James or if he was being removed for assembling the Sanhedrim without Albinus' consent. Turek contends that James is being martyred but the passage DOES NOT INDICATE SUCH. This James, if it is even Jesus brother, could have been executed, indeed if he even was executed, for other unspecified offenses. Like all apologists, Turek makes assumptions and glosses over missing details in order to get to his Jesus, for whom, unfortunately, there exists scant extra-biblical evidence, this Josephus James passage being one example. Note: Not a word by Josephus about Christianity, about Jesus the man, about James the man, and nothing to corroborate the events recounted in the gospels. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews consists of 20 volumes, yet the only two passages where a reference to Jesus appear is this "James" passage and in the dubious "Testimonium Flavianum." The supposed most monumental event in Jewish history prior to the sacking of Judea by the Romans in 70AD and all we have are two small references, of uncertain provenance, the authenticity of which is disputed by scholars. But Turek will never explain that to you. He can't. All he can do is bash atheism, a subject he also demonstrates little knowledge of.

No. Everyone is not religious. No. Not everyone worships something. 3:05 minutes in and you’re lying already.