Ok, answer me honestly, do you believe that miracles did happen and do you believe that miracles still happen??? We can take it further depending on your answer.
@@4faxache935 There is general consensus among skeptical NT scholars that Jesus was believed by people of His day, friends and enemies alike, to be a consistent miracle worker. 1. No one in that time frame denied the miracles, not even his enemies, when they wrote about the miracles they called them sorcery or the work of the devil. 2. Early enemies of the church did not deny the miracles. 3. Even scholars who don’t believe the gospels are inspired from God, believe they have historical content, and the historical content surrounding the miracles is strong enough to conclude that Jesus had a reputation of being a miracle worker. 3a. The gospels record of the negative response of scribes and Pharisees about Jesus miracles being from Satan is seen by scholars to be very historical. It’s not considered to be something the church would have made up. That response indicates that Jesus was known to be working miracles to such a degree, that there was no denying it, and the best Jesus enemies could do was to try to explain the miracles away. 4. What’s interesting to me, is that there is no one else in Jewish history, except for Moses and Elijah who had this reputation. It’s not like people were super gullible back then and faith healers were everywhere. In fact, we are more gullible today about miracles than they were. We do have faith healers fooling people everywhere. There were very few miracle claims outside of the gospels, and no one had a reputation of consistently healing lepers, blind, maimed, deaf, dumb, paralytics, like Jesus did.
@@4faxache935of course. Everyone believes in at least 1 miracle. We Christians, believe that God is free to do as He pleases and has done many miracles in the past and still does today
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Evidence Eru Ilúvatar is non fictional = 0 Evidence God of Bible is non fictional = 0 Regardless of Tolkien's views, it ended in a draw.
@@TurinTuramber just struck me as ironic that Tolkien gave us CS Lewis who has had such a huge impact on people coming to Christ. Please take it in the friendly tone I meant it. Happy to talk sometime if you would like.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You should read the Ainulindalë. Tolkien's christian beliefs are rooted there, it's like the book of Genesis only better written and more probable.
@@starvethemonster7732 Yes, the Bible can be pretty disgusting. But I give the Lord a pass on that no matter what he does and will defend him as he needs my help because he certainly can't defend himself. He needs ME.😂
so basically, you are saying that you prefer to believe in a god because that gives you a simple and easy answer for the things that are difficult to understand.
Thank you for your video, unfortunately it doesn't seem this video shows clear understanding of the opposing viewpoint. I let go of the Idea of religion a while ago and learned there is a whole universe between "something" and "nothing". Arguments such as "it just makes sense" or "how could you not see..." can be perceived as deeming to the other person. You're saying that only reason someone would disagree with you is because they lack any understanding or intelligence. These are the types of arguments that started to push me away in the first place. I do appreciate what you're doing, I just wish videos like this would put more effort into actual empathy and understanding rather than repeating the same circular reasoning I've heard in church for decades.
Let’s talk sometime if you’d like. You seem like a reasonable person to me. (And I don’t doubt the intelligence of people who disagree with me. Lots of smarter people than me disagree with me. I don’t mean to suggest that non-religious people are less intelligent)
I'm an atheist. I don't believe that "something comes from nothing". I also don't believe that morality is an illusion, anymore than Stephen believes that laws are an illusion. Stephen's arguments about rationality and order are also childish straw man fallacies, particularly since he literally makes them assertions. This video just makes me sad, that anyone would take such a simplistic and ignorant position. But I'm going to email him and see if he can change my mind.
Totally agree. This is the same old tired and debunked arguments. My random thoughts .You ASSERT that there is a moral law giver. You say something has always existed with no evidence. Even though it did - Could it be that matter has always existed rather than a supreme being? You don't know and neither do I. You need to provide evidence before I will believe it. "Atheists can't explain things therefore god". "We can't explain the brain therefore god". This is just the usual "god of the gaps" argument. You give the argument from design (not proven). The argument from odds (not proven). Has anyone proved ONE miracle? Also as stated- I certainly dont believe that everything came from nothing. Why do RU-vid theists constantly keep on with this crazy strawman. Nobody is saying that everything came from nothing.
The funny thing is, no atheists believed something came from nothing. Christians on the otherhand do believe something came from nothing. It’s literally in their holy book 😂 The irony.
@@mikeyant2445 I dont know. As far as I know, nobody knows. Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean that bronze age magical superstitions are justified to be concluded.
There is no objective morality - but that does not mean there is no morality. We have evolved as moral creatures, able to have empathy, and act morally on the basis of human welfare. The problem with the Christian moral position is not that there are certain things that are objectively moral, but that any action is moral, if it corresponds to the nature of God - so anything is permissible, indeed, God can command people to commit any act, and it becomes 'moral' because of that instruction. Can you name any action that would be absolutely 'immoral'?
I don't have empathy or many good morals. I've been diagnosed a sociopath and really don't care about too many things. I am also a creature on this planet.
@@Wink_Dinkerson I couldn't give two shits about anything that anybody tells me. If i kill any living thing, i have absolutely no remorse or feelings toward said sentient being, if anything, when i take life, it makes me feel even more powerful. If that makes me a sociopath, then so be it.
'I don't like it, so it can't be true' is not a good argument, and certainly not one that holds any weight against actual, repeatable sceintific studies.
@@Logslayer999 You can't use something to prove itself true, it's called circular reasoning. It's like you're saying, "the bible is true because the bible says so".
@@Logslayer999 because the bible is the source of the claims. If I were to author a book claiming my uncle could fly like Superman, can that very same book be the evidence for the claim it is making, or would we require external attestations supporting said claims?
@@tonikeys But what if some part of the Bible is judged by scholars to be historical? Or what if the Bible makes a prophecy that actually comes true historically? I don’t think your statement can be as cut and dried as you make it.
You can't destroy the non belief in a deity, especially since they just get replaced with new ones all the time. You also have odd excuses for not being an Atheist, which is very weird for anyone to list or even bring up unless they're already questioning their beliefs.
You can destroy non belief. Just provide solid evidence that what you believe in is actual and true. Mr Heckett's start to this is not based upon truth. He says he knows the sun will rise. The sun doesn't rise. For our practical purposes the sun is fixed and the earth rotates, so we see the sun in different places from earth. It never rises or sets, we just experience it as though it does. Should this change we would be very aware of the earth being very disturbed or just plain dead. My explanation is so very simplistic, astronomers would eat me alive for what I just said, with even more detailed facts. As for the design of the human body, why do we still get appendicitis? Why is it that a poorly understood organ can kill us so easily. And if the earth is designed for humans, how come we have water shortages, when the sea is full of water but we can't drink it, without expensive desalination. So to destroy disbelief, provide facts.
I think morality evolved from the survival instinct living in a society. In the beginning of time we have been killing each other like animals, but along the way we found out that the highest chance of surviving and being able to live together is through empathy and compassion. Religion took this learning from basic evolution saying "don't do something to one, that you wouldn't want on yourself". Besides that, there's also a lot of immoralities taught in the book (slaves, pedophilia, murder) and there have been many atrocities in the name of God. If God is all knowing it should've known that humans would do more harm than good with the teachings it gave.
But there is no 'chance of surviving' at all for humans. If your atheism is true then everyone who has ever lived will be destroyed forever - absolutely no-one will survive. So there is no justification for mortality evolving.
So, this definitely sounds plausible; however, I'm not quite sure if morality evolving from survival instinct explains the phenomenon of sacrifice. In other words, when a person puts their life in danger to save someone else who doesn't share their genes, this would seem counterintuitive to survival. Yet, it's a universal phenomenon in every race of people. Regarding 'immoralities taught in the Bible,' this is something I hear quite often, especially about slavery (particularly chattel slavery in America). While I especially appreciate the sensitivity to the subject shown by people who are not of African American descent like myself, I don't believe slavery in the Bible to be problematic. Unfortunately, people can have a very simplistic view of reality. The God of the Bible has never been portrayed as someone who just does whatever he wants whenever he wants just because he's all-powerful. He did not tell Adam and Eve that he(God) was going to rule over the earth, no, he told them in Genesis 3 that THEY, human beings, will rule over the earth, not him. And he never said he would prevent mankind from disobeying or doing anything evil. He did say, however, that there would be consequences to disobeying His word, and we see these consequences in slavery, murder, poverty etc.
Haha thanks for popping in! I would offer to talk to your dog, but I doubt there is much I could say to sway him 😂 All we can do is pray 🙏. Seriously, thanks for popping in!
@@tedgrant2 Is There Really A God Who Judges Sin? While there are many who have called themselves God or gods over the millenia, have any of them shown an ability to actually judge sins? The god of the Quran has never shown that ability. The gods of the Hindu scriptures have never shown any ability to judge. The god of the Book of Mormon has never shown that he actually judges anyone. Literally, in the history of man, the only God Who has shown that He judges sinners in real life is the God of the Bible. Throughout the Bible He pronounced judgments on cities and civilizations, and history has shown that they have come true just as promised hundreds or in some cases thousands of years earlier. The God of the Bible pronounced specific judgments on the cities Jerusalem, (Luke 21, 20-24) Nineveh, (Zephaniah 2:13-15) Samaria, (Micah 1:5-9) Tyre, Exekiel 36) Ashkelon, (Zephaniah 2:4-7) Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida, (Matthew 11:20-24) and many others. In every case the pronounced judgment came true. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but they came true. The God of the Bible pronounced specific long term, or permanent judgments on the Hebrew civilization, (Ezekiel 36-38) the Edomite (Ezekiel 25:13-14) civilization, the Philistine civilization, (Ezekiel 25;15-17) and many others because of their sins. Once again, history confirms that the pronounced judgments came true. There are many religions that tell me to fear their gods. But there is no God, except the God of the Bible Who has demonstrated that He actually judges sinners in real life. He is the only God to follow. And He is to be followed according to the book He has given us, the Holy Bible. Are You Good Enough to go to Heaven? (The 10 Commandment Test) The Bible is supernatural in origin, therefore take heed to its promise of Heaven and warning of Hell. The Ten Commandments says “Thou shalt not kill.” Have you ever murdered? If you have you are a murderer. It says “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Have you ever lied? If you have you are a liar. (Think: If one little murder would make you a murderer, then one little lie makes you a liar.) It says “Thou shalt not steal.” Have you ever stolen? Ever? Anything? If you have you are a thief. It says “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” Have you ever used the name God or Jesus as cuss words. If you have you are a blasphemer. Jesus said that if we even look at someone with lust, we are adulterers at heart. Have you ever looked with lust? We have only looked at five of the commandments, yet if God were to judge you by the 10 commandments would you be innocent or guilty? If you have said yes to any of these questions, you are guilty and cannot stand before a holy God. Do you really think a Holy God is going to let murderers, liars, thieves, blasphemers and adulterers into heaven? The Bible says. “. . . all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Revelation 21:8) You desperately need a Savior. The Bible says: But God commendeth His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ, God the Son, died on the cross and paid for all your sins. The Bible teaches that He literally took the entire punishment that was coming to us for our sins, so that we could be forgiven and freely allowed into Heaven. He rose from the dead, and now wants to forgive you and save you from the sins that condemn you. He will give you a salvation that will not only forgive you, but it will turn you away from those sins that are destroying you. If you will repent of your sins, (name them) and trust Him for forgiveness and salvation, He promises: “Believe (trust in, rely on, cling to) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16
@@tedgrant2A man with his "member" cut off or with damaged "stones" is not to be in the assembly of the Lord either. After all, you just can't let anyone in.😂
An atheist is just someone who isn't convinced that gods are real. they don't have to believe any of those things you listed. Everything came from nothing? Don't know any atheists who believe that. We are just scratching the surface in our understanding of reality.
You are right. I tried to make that clear in the video too. Technically atheist could deny the existence of God and affirm the existence of other supernatural entities or causation. But every atheist that I’ve interacted with usually holds to naturalism and/or materialism. To me, that would seem to be the natural entailment of atheism. Thanks for watching!!
Well that's it. I can swear on an Bible in court and my entire defense was that "God told me to do it" .. The judge wasn't buying it and said that I was suffering from a form of mental illness. What's weirder though, loads of people get together in places of worship and claim that God has spoken to them ........ the dont get locked up for embezzlement for their false claims.
Sorry about this. I'm sick in bed and was bored lol. Objective morality isn't achievable under any metaethical system, including theism. In fact, objective morality is a semantic anomaly; akin to something like asking what the objectively fastest tree is. Consider your suggestion to ground goodness in god. What do you mean by "goodness"? Presumably, you're going to point to something along the lines of God's moral nature. Therefore, the dependent-clause "grounding goodness in god" is akin to stating "grounding god's nature in god". This circularity issue applies equally to something like utilitarianism. In this sense, goodness is grounded in something like non-harm (oversimplified). Thus, when an atheist says murder is bad, it's akin to saying that bad things are bad. Besides the circularity problem, one can ask what non-arbitrary reasons there are for connecting the word goodness to God's nature in the first place. I can conceive of an anti-God, who is opposite to God in all moral aspects. Under this version of God, goodness would reflect the nature of him, which would entail that actions like murder are now good. Presumably, you would object to grounding goodness in a being like this, but for what reason? Remember, appealing to things like intuition, tradition or harm caused cannot be used as objective anchors. You also cannot appeal to God's omniscience or omnipotence, since anti-God possesses these properties too. By grounding goodness in a being, goodness is necessarily whatever the nature of that being happens to be, which is a descriptive fact. There is no "ought" accounted for in this view, which means objective morality isn't even an intelligible concept. An atheist can also imagine a contingent, non-universe thing. To suggest that nothing fits that category assumes that what we can currently conceive of is already the end of the road. Think about that in terms of before Darwin, Einstein or Schrodinger. Second, God isn't really an intuitive candidate. The usual rationalisations about minds being immaterial and non-temporal etc. rely on an outdated, cartesian understanding of the mind. It's almost certain that minds, immaterial or not, depend on physical media and that they operate in time. If we consider how causation typically works, the thought arises in time, followed by a physical movement. That motion interacts with another physical object (e.g. wood), and finally a new physical arrangement results (e.g. a table). Notice how nothing in this process mirrors how God supposedly brought the universe into being. With divine creation, we have a thought/will that arises in no time, there is no physical motion, and there is nothing physical for that motion to move. This process is more akin to magic than causation, and has no empirical basis in reality. There is no free will whether or not materialism is true. If you suppose that you can choose your own choices or decide your own decisions or think your own thoughts, you get an infinite regress. If your choices are determined by unconscious processes, there is no free will. This is true whether or not we're talking about a brain or an immaterial soul. The reason we seem to act as if we do have free will is ironically because we have no choice. God doesn't offer an explanation for human consciousness. A good explanation typically boasts explanatory mechanisms and makes novel predictions. The theist is essentially saying that magic is doing it. Magic has always eventually been removed and replaced by scientific theories. The appearance of design does not indicate design. We know this through experience. The chance of the Earth being exactly how and where it is indeed inexplicable, but you seem to be committing the foresight fallacy, which involves assessing the likelihood of an outcome based on the specific details of that outcome, ignoring the multitude of possible outcomes that could have occurred. People fall into this fallacy when they look at a highly specific event and remark on its improbability without considering that, given the vast number of possible events, the likelihood of any particular outcome occurring is relatively low. Imagine you have a die with a trillion sides, and you decide to roll it. Each side of the dice represents a different outcome, and there are a trillion possible outcomes. Now, before you roll the dice, you may think that the chance of any specific number showing up is incredibly low-perhaps one in a trillion. However, the foresight fallacy occurs when, after rolling the dice, you look at the number that actually came up and express surprise or amazement at that specific outcome. This surprise is unwarranted because, given the vast number of possibilities (trillion sides), it was highly likely that one specific outcome would occur. You're making the same error in terms of the Earth. If life did not emerge on our particular planet, we have trillions of other candidate planets and solar systems. In fact, we now know of many other planets with a similar size and distance from their respective star. The atheist doesn't need to subscribe to any particular natural explanation for the resurrection. Known-unknowns are more likely than miracles, as they occur more frequently. Therefore, on the basis of experience, it's more likely that some unknown natural explanation is true than a known supernatural one. The atheist isn't philosophically committed to something from nothing. The theist is committed to only one particular process of creation. An atheist can hold to an eternal multiverse, or even a supernatural creation. The atheist simply rejects that a God created the universe. Rationality does arise from non-rationality Order does arise from disorder. (Both empirically true)
If objective morality exists, then presumably it would be possible, in any specific situation, to say exactly what the objectively moral response should be. I am afraid I don't see how that is the case? For example, is the death penalty objectively moral, and in what circumstances? Many Christians have wildly different views on that, from those who think that it is never justified to those who think it is justified for various different reasons. Can you prove to me that objective morality exists? You also make the argument that the universe must have been created a necessary being. I don't necessarily agree, but let's assume you are right. You say that God is that necessary being, again let's assume you are right. But why would you specifically believe that the God of the Bible is a necessary being? Surely the universe could just as easily have been created by some other God, perhaps a God who hasn't even revealed himself yet? Humans have been around for 100,000 years but the Bible is only about 3,000 years old, so there were 97,000 years when mankind had to invent other Gods. Thousands of them, over the years. What makes you think your God is necessary when all the others were obviously not?
So glad you took the time to watch. I would be happy to discuss further on zoom if you would like. You seem like you’ve spent some time thinking on these topics and you might already be settled in your own mind, but if your still open minded to another view, I would be happy to share with you mine. Either way, you do me a kindness for watching and listening.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You seem like a nice fellow… I just don’t see this as a valid effort to say a person one way or another. If I’m a person wanting to find Christ, this will not be the video to convince me in his existence and righteousness. If I’m a person denying god’s existence, this will not be the video to convince me otherwise in the slightest. The arguments you have presented for your believing in the existence of god and specifically the Christian god were nothing new, though fairly presented. I am an atheist, a former born again Christian. I may not be able to quote biblical verses exactly, but I know my way around some major concepts. If you’re up for that zoom call, I’d be glad to have a chat.
@@BorisTheRed happy to. Shoot me an email. My name is Stephen Hackett. For spam purposes let give you my email address like this firstname.lastname@outlook.com. Look forward to talking.
What might change your mind, or at least increase your doubts? If someone could satisfy you that the resurrection appearances in 30AD cannot be definitively differentiated from Caesar's comet and other physical and psychological phenomena would that change your mind? Or is it the morality criteria which carries the most weight for you? Or something else?
Hi Sean, I don’t think this answer really increases my credibility. But it’s an honest answer. I’ve thought as deeply as I can on Atheism, and I can’t imagine changing my mind on that. On Atheism, I can’t see how it would matter what I believed, and I think I would rather believe this. Also on atheism, I can’t see how determinism would be false. In that case, I would be determined to believe whatever I believe.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thanks for the response. To clarify: you prefer Christianity to atheism? Lots of Christians who grew up churched think those are the main options although there are plenty of agnostic Christians (and even atheists). I guess I was specifically asking with regards to "is Christianity TRUE" but maybe for you that can't be separated from "what is best" or even "what is good"? One could argue that truth can be those things.
So you dont want to talk to anyone that's going to challenge anything you say or make you prove anything. Sounds like you just want to talk to someone who is willing to buy anything. Sounds like an opening to how scams work
Hi thanks, for watching! I’m willing to talk you too! I don’t want to waste your time if there is no openness, however. But feel free to reach me if you are interested.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I am always open. I find it a bit ironic you would use openness though. Your video says Atheism Destroyed "Christianity is true" so you want one side to be open while you're not open. Seems like you are already starting off the conversation dishonest.
I've heard often about the millionth of a millionth of a chance regarding the origins and development of the universe as currently is as in favor of a supernatural intelligent creator. However, have you ever seen the lotto ticket chances where is says something like 1 in 250,000,000 chance or something like that? Well, bottom line is that even though chances are not probable, the fact is that someone does eventually win. Someone gets lucky. Similarly, if the universe if billions and billions of years old, then the small fraction of probability that the universe could happen by chance isn't so difficult to believe. Just as with the lotto ticket, after so many trials, one lucky person wins.
I think when it comes to design, a person could say we just got really, really lucky. But here is another analogy. If you had a billion monkeys typing away randomly on keyboard, it’s possible one of them might accidentally by chance type all the works of Shakespeare out with perfect punctuation and spelling. But given 1000 years or a 1 million years or a billion years, it still seems most improbable to me. I wouldn’t bet on the monkeys.
@@TheInvitingPath a bit. But even if Darwinian evolution were true (and I don’t think it is) that would not explain the fine tuning of the universe, the fine tuning of earth, or the origin of life. Explaining those things by chance, makes a monkey typing out Shakespeare look easy.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes. But the fine tuning argument assumes an end goal, that things had to be as they are. Apply puddle analogy here. The "monkeys typing Shakespeare" analogy a) assumes an end goal again and, b) ignores the self replicating nature of life. It would be less flawed if, when the monkeys struck a correct character, it was saved. Then they would only have to get the next character right, taking your odds from 1 in a bajillion to 1 in 44 (that the next stroke is correct), making your Shakespearian goal an inevitability. Still flawed, but better. As for the amazing fine tuning of the Universe from a Human perspective, it's worth noting that you would die instantly in the vast majority of this universe. We're not even well suited to surviving on the majority of this planet.
If god grounds objective morality why do so many theist disagree on what is moral or not? Even people in the same religion, sect and even church can and do disagree on somethings. For the most part they will agree on the big things like rape and murder are wrong but so do atheists. I don’t see how god is grounding it when there is no way to verify that someone is getting their morality from a god or just their own intuition by their upbringing. They might say it is from a god but how do you demonstrate that? Edited - I said “objective reality” when I meant “objective morality”
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I will admit I am laymen when it comes to philosophy but my working definition is the epistemology is roughly “how one knows” and ontology is more “what actually is”. So if you are saying just because the epistemology leads to differing understanding of what is moral and that doesn’t necessarily mean the ontology of god grounding it, is wrong, that’s fine. We still need some consistent epistemology that would show there might be an ontological grounding in god. What would be the correct epistemology for finding the “correct” or ontological god morality?
I appreciate you watching and popping in! All of these could be and have been laid out as deductive arguments. WLC’s formulation of the moral argument: 1. If God does not exist objective moral values don’t exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. Similar formulations exist for every argument I suggested.
"If you're out to just try to, y'know, prove your point, this call's not for you." - If you HAVE a point, and ANY evidence to back it up, please don't speak to me.
I’m willing to talk to you, Thomas. I just don’t want to waste either of our time, if nothing I could say will sway you or nothing you would say would sway me. Those conversations are often are futile. But if you’d like to have a conversation, I’m open to doing that. I genuinely appreciate you stopping and interacting!
Technically an atheist here; not a naturalist, not a materialist, and I don't believe something comes from something. As for morality, the feeling that certain actions are somehow objectively wrong - without defining "objective" or explaining how morals can be objective - is just that, a feeling, and thus not much evidence for the claim. If folks need to believe things in order to make it through life, I don't tend to begrudge them that, but I do take exception when they incorrectly (perhaps intentionally) characterize the positions of others. Otherwise it's just preaching to the choir - which I guess is fine if that's the goal, but if so, be honest and admit that up front.
Thanks for watching. My arguments are aimed primarily against naturalists or materialists. To me, atheism lends itself to that. I tried to make that clear in my video. I’m open to a conversation if you are interested!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I guess it all depends on how "naturalist" or "materialist" is defined. I've been around quite some time and I haven't met many (if any) atheists who make the claim that everything is natural or material. They will of course state that's all we observe and can confirm, but that's obviously not the same thing. To them (and myself) it's more of a probability thing than outright declaration. As for conversation, while I do enjoy civil, challenging conversation, but I prefer the label "hopeful agnostic" rather than atheist (though technically it fits). In my experience believers tend to deride my position because it's not what they want it to be.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Unfortunately my house is not set up with a place for sufficient privacy to conduct a zoom call. Any exchange would have to be written.
@@madmax2976 I understand. I would give you my regular via email your ever interested. (Written exchanges are very time consuming for me.) no pressure. Hope the best for you!
@@choicegospelnetwork Yes. And a dog is much better than an invisible friend. They are very faithful and loving and we can demonstrate a dog. We can't do the same for Jebus.
@@Danny451 😥 Sad . I feel for you.. Take a Good look into the mirror and Tell me how 🤔 it possible to be self designed and so complex. Note this. God knows that you know that he exists, He doesn't need your approval 🙏. And Jesus is not God. Have a wonderful night
You are correct that moral realism presents materialist with a huge problem, one they rarely recognise as such. But one cannot simply then jump to 'God'. This is particularly a problem if you view God as a person who judges things in the same way a human does and suggest that evil is only evil because God judges it to be so. Consciousness is also a problem (which you talk about as rationality and intention), materialist have a tough time accounting for consciousness. Philosophers have tackled these problems for thousands of years and Christianity was quite late to the party. The origin of the universe is not a good argument for the existence of God at all. CCC is more than capable of giving a materialist account of a universe which has always existed, and there are many other adequate explanations. As for 'design', that's even weaker, the anthropic principle is sufficient. Stick with moral realism and consciousness, that's the only route to anything like God. The history of a resurrection is just like any myth, it's only insight is mythological, not historical (there's no more reason to believe in the miracles of Jesus than the miracles of Mohammed). Christ can be your saviour without making him into a magical wizard who deals in fancy spells.
Thanks for watching and interacting thoughtfully with my material. You do me an honor, sir. I can tell you have thought far more deeply on these things than 95% of the commenters so far. If you would like a conversation sometime, we could do that.
You may like the idea of free will, objective morality, and to denie that would mean to throw over board alot of things you thought were facts. Doesn't make it wrong or right.
So who created god? Oh you believe he was always existed So for all eternity he sat in the dark on his throne Well god and the palm sisters Floor must have been sticky Also did the throne flush? Then 600 years ago he turned his brain on and created toys to play with. That is what you believe?
I didn’t make any claims about the Bible in this video, I don’t think. But I’m happy to talk to you about the scriptures sometime if you are open minded.
As an atheist, it seems to me that theism has no grounds for morality at all. Hear me out... Actions do not have intrinsic properties of good/moral vs evil/immoral/bad. So, in theism's worldview good/moral is that which is in accordance with god's will and bad/evil/immoral is that which is not in accordance with god's will. Since god can actualize any state of affairs, every actualized state of affairs is therefore in accordance with god's will. Hence, nothing can be deemed immoral.
3:11 Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism can be lacking a belief in all gods, but if there's any god you don't believe in, you are atheist with regard to that god. This is equally applicable if we say one does not believe in a god, or actively believes a given god doesn't exist. For example, your and I both probably either hold no belief, or actively don't believe, in whether or not Gilgamesh met with the king of hell to get his friend back to life. You presumably actively believe that only Yahweh (or one of the other gods listed in the old testament) is the father of Jesus. You presumably also believe that the Queen of heaven isn't married to Yahweh because she's not a god either (though she's not presented as such in modern texts anyway) and are equally as atheist to her existence as a god as I am, despite stories in ancient texts attributing her (ishtar, ashtoreth, whatever,) to be a god like Yhwh, despite what people experienced when they baked cakes for her, and so on. The only reason we distinguish between atheists and theists is because it's kinda silly to say I'm a-Christian or a-buddhist or whatever. A person who is fully atheist agrees with you about every god that you also don't believe in, we just also don't believe in yours.
Atheism is simply an acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of any God. Therefore, it cannot be false as insufficient is insufficient in the eye of the person judging. Ricky Gervais sums it up very succinctly... with the 1000's of Gods created by man, Christians are Atheists for all except one.
I take issue with your suggestion that atheists can’t ground their morality as if philosophy and ethics don’t exist. Yes the Nazis were bad, not because God hates genocide (which he seems to not mind actually) but because genocide causes immeasurable suffering. It’s not a difficult calculation. We humans have a sense of morality, yes, and it seems to subjectively vary between individuals, so the best we can do is construct an ethical framework which limits suffering and maximizes well-being. Sir, I’d like to take your arguments seriously, but your ignorance of the field of ethics makes it difficult for me to do that.
I’ve heard the line “claims” are not “evidence” but it doesn’t seem right. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is considered evidence. Most of history is based on claims of ancient historians. Anyways, I appreciate you popping in!
Sigh. This is one depressing video. Stephen, would you want to know if you're wrong about pretty much everything you've said in this video, or would you prefer not to know?
“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” Romans 2:15 ESV “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1 ESV “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Romans 1:19-23 ESV “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.” Psalm 53:1 ESV
Man, that last part is pretty cruddy.... "there is none who does good." Really? You've never met me. Those are the kind of words that some use to justify violence against non-believers. I'm not "doing abominable iniquity". I'm an atheist, but I'm co-parenting a kid and I've never said "there is no god" or anything like that. I've never tried to tell them what to believe, or anyone else. I also wouldn't say that you or anyone else is "corrupt, doing abominable iniquity" just because you hold different beliefs.
@@agnosticmoron6711 that's the thing. I'm a believer and know that I'm a wretch in need of a savior. And violence is never justified in the sight of God since the incarnation of Jesus. Hope the best for you and your family. I'm a parent as well.
@@agnosticmoron6711I think that verse is meant to be understood as "the fool has said in his heart 'There is no karma' ." Even when I was evangelical that's how I read it.
@@seanhogan6893 What??? I am 100% unaware of the concept of karma being included in the bible. I've read it twice, and never seen the word in the bible. So, it seems like you're imagining something from whole-cloth, here. Maybe you mean it differently than I am understanding you?
@@agnosticmoron6711 monotheistic religions have to assign all facets of natural law to God. So Romans 12:19 says "never avenge yourselves but leave it to the wrath of God". Psalm 14 seems to be about the strong (Babylonians) abusing the righteous weak (Israel) because "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
You cannot clame to be genuine and then immediately repeat the same old apologetic lies that we have been addressing for the last 30 years. And your feelings are not evidence of the supernatural.
You suggest that for there to be a moral law, then there is a moral giver. Well, since humans needed each other to survive, morality was born from actions that increased the chances of human survival vs actions which decreased it. We needed society to prosper, so the thing that were bad for society are morally wrong. Also, there are so many immoral things in the bible, such as slavery and grape. The fact that we can cherry pick the good things from the bad things in the bible suggests that we do not need to look at the bible for morality. We already know it. And it does change based on the times. The bible doesn't change.
I stopped watching after about 2 minutes or so when you stated that everything you see is interpreted through the lens through Christian belief. Some people never outgrow the psychological impact of early indoctrination which is why so many competing and incompatible religions persist as people develop a deep desire to cling to the various particular comforting stories they were introduced to in early formative years. Basing explanation from that perspective is a clear and unambiguous case of committing the logical fallacy of confirmation bias which is a perversion of rational thinking. Rational thinking is predicated upon drawing a conclusion only after objective evaluation of evidence whereas confirmation bias is predicated on starting with the conclusion as already accepted and then trying to craft explanations in a such a way that can be claimed to support a conclusion that was the very starting point in the first place. This is incompatible with valuing the dignity of and respect for intellectual integrity, although it appears to be a bedrock prerequisite for maintaining theistic belief.
I always find it facinating when Christian apologists disparage materialism. According to your own worldview your god made this "matter in motion" "fizzing" exactly as it does and yet you speak of our material world as if it should be thought of as meaningless, base, unimportant, etc. by those that do not belive in a god. There is nothing to prevent a nonbeliever from finding significance or purpose. Pattern seeking is what human beings do as a major survival advantage. I might even argue that the patterns of significance and purpose are necessarily generated subjectively and cannot be imposed externally without violating free-will. Wouldn't your worldview disintegrate without materialism? No physical Adam. No physical Eve to eat a physical fruit snd give the forbidden morsal to her husband thus causing sin to enter the world cursing both earth and mankind. Such sin did the first couple physically pass down to their physical bloodline, etc., etc. No physical Messiah to physically teach the gospel to physical diciples, physically die, and physically resurrect, thus, according to the will of your god, physically defeating sin and death etc. Didn't the apostke Paul state that without the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ all your "hope was in vain" or the like? It seems to me your worldview is entirely dependent upon the the materialism you are disparaging when it is not at all evident a materialistic worldview is dependent upon the "truth" of Christianity. Another religion or spiritual path could be the "truth" explaining the material world in the same manner as the Christian worldview. We could be a simulation - the god you belive in, a construct of a super computer. Existence always was and is and our universe is but one example of how matter and energy can be acted upon by physical "laws", etc. We can speculate until the cows come home, but is it not best to withhold judgment until we have enough evidence to warrent belief in anything? There are many different rebuttals to each one of your points offered by many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, scientists, other religious apologists, and philosophers throughout the years rendering this particular presentation utterly basic and typical if not laughable.
Hello Stephen, I am an atheist frm germany that stumbled across this video. Unfortunately, I found your reasoning to be entirely unconvincing. Here is my response to your objections. Please excuse me if my English isn't perfect. Nr. 1 Moral experience You claim that a god would be necessary to guarantee objective morality. The ancient Greeks already knew what problems come with such a claim. Are things objectively moral because God says so? In this case, god could easily define things that we think of as immoral as moral. This makes morality entirely arbitrary. If morality was somehow just part of God's nature without being dependant on what he arbitrarily defines as moral, you could just as well argue that morality is part of human nature or the fabric of the universe and circumvent the whole supernatural part. I have a sense of morality, but I don't think that morality is objective, although some atheist thinkers do. I think that the philosophical models of morality (like utilitarianism or deontological ethics) can explain morality to a certain extent, but they can also be led ad absurdum. The fact that morality isn't totally objective was a hard pill for me to swallow, but I don't think that religion has a satisfying alternative. I thnk that to a certain extent things like altruism and empathy are part of our genes. As societies, we need to keep discussing on what our norms should be and what values we should teach the next generations. 2. Why is there something rather than nothing? You claim that the universe needs to have been caused by something non contingent. Even if we grant this, we still haven't demonstrated that this was an intelligent being that did anything with intent. And the question remains why the universe needs a cause and God somehow doesn't need a cause. That's special pleading. As humans, our normal intuitions completely break down when it comes to the time right at the big bang. We can't even talk about a time "before" the big bang, because time and space were created at that point. We have no idea what properties true nothingness has. That's why it seems preposterous to me to claim that an intelligent being was definitely needed to create the universe. 3. Rational thought You claim that a god is needed to explain rational thought. First of all, humans aren't entirely rational. Evolution (broadly speaking, disregarding memetics) designed us to hold ideas that are useful to survival. Inaccurate beliefs or the capacity to hold them often are harmful to survival, so they are selected against. Sometimes inaccurate ideas hold some survival advantage. For instance, religion provides social cohesion. But even if we granted that God exists, how do we know that he actually would want us to think rationally? Maybe he would want us to think that we are rational, but how would we actually know that we are rational? The religious worldview doesn't actually give a good basis for rationality. You also said that thoughts forming in a brain aren't more rational than Saturn being in it's orbit or something like that. I just dont get what point youn were trying to get across with that. It's true that both processes are the result of natural processes (in my opinion). However, that's just about the only similarity, and it doesn't follow that the thought forming in the brain isn't rational. It's as if I said that planes can't fly because both the engines of a plane and a car rely on natural processes. It simply doesn't follow. You still haven't justified why you think it's the case that rational thought can't arise from natural processes. 4. Argument from design You mention that the solar system seems to be very well suited for life, with the size of the moon, the distance from the sun, etc. This is because life evolved in a solar system that was suitable for life. Yes, it is pretty unlikely (from what we know) for a solar system to be suitable for life, but the universe is mind bogglingly huge. There are bound to be some that have favorable conditions, and obviously we live in one that has these conditions. You also mentioned that the body seems designed. Evolution by natural selection explains our complexity and our suitability for our environment. Please don't come with "it's just a theory". In science, all hypothesis that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt are called theories. Scientific theories sometimes get tweaked a little here and there (which speakes for the scientific method) - that's why science doesn't know rigorous "proofs" in the way mathematics does. Science relies on the accumulation of supporting evidence. In the broad strokes we can accept scientific theories to be true, just as we accept the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. The emergence of highly complex structures through evolution has been shown in shown even in a short amount of time in labs very often. Even if we didn't have the theory of evolution, it woudn't follow that a god exists that designed us. In nature, highly complex structures such as snowflakes form spontaneously. Complexity doesn't autmatically mean something was designed. 5. Miracles Improbable events do sometimes happen, even if they seem highly unlikely. If these events are seen as positive, people will often call these miracles. The problem is that the miraculous nature stays entirely unfalsifiable because the super natural by definition is outside of the natural world and cannot be demonstrated using scientific means. There have been lots of myths about religious or political leaders . Jesus is by no means an exception. I think that a claim as extraordinary as a resurrection needs extraordinary evidence, and i dont even think that the evidence even fulfills ordinary standards. I could easily imagine how perhaps stories of people having visions of Jesus (which doesnt need a supernatural explanation) over time mutated into a full blown story of a resurrection.
Hi thanks for interacting with my actual video and taking the time to watch the whole thing. I really appreciate that! I also appreciate your irenic tone. I would be happy to talk to you sometime on these things. Shoot me an email if you are interested.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thats weird, I spelled your email correctly (I just checked). Perhaps its in your spam folder. I also sent you another email just now.
Who created god? Your logic ends with God made it and somehow that makes sense to you. Who made your god? Is it the right god? Which religions are going to hell. Maybe your religion is wrong. Who decides? Again God. Is he a clock maker or a personal friend who loves only the people who love him. Or rather he commands that you love him. A good dad wouldn’t need to command love from his kids.
Who created god is the wrong question to ask. If you were separated somehow at birth, what makes more sense to ask and discover first: who created me? Or who created my parents?
Thanks for watching! Reach out to me if you would like and we can have a conversation if you are interested. You might be totally convinced of your position, but if you are open minded on this, I would be happy to talk.
@@TheInvitingPath. This logic seems irrelevant. I’m talking about how did God get here. If your answer to how the universe got here is God, then how did God get here? Science can’t answer where it all began. But neither can Christianity.
Nothing new here. Same old arguments that have been refuted a billion times over. Im not sure what atheist content you have seen, but everything you mentioned here has been covered to death.
This is really poorly thought out. With respect to morality we know that the bible has been interpreted to provide different moral views. In other words its subjective. Its perfectly possible however to build a moral system with agreed foundational principles in order to make the morals derived objective in nature. With respect to something from nothing. Its not clear that anyone actually says that, there are competing theories on whats prior to the big bang none of which require god. This is just an assertion.
Hello thanks for watching and engaging with the material in the video! I think Quentin Smith would be an example of an atheist who does believe something came from nothing. I also think that Lawrence Kraus SAYS he believes that. But I think in his case that’s an equivocation on the word “nothing”.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You are correct however Quentin Smith did make that claim but that was with respect to the state of the evidence at that time (which was some time ago) physicist posit various theories which in and of itself makes the claim of 'something from nothing' problematic. Some of the theories entail quantumn fields and others cyclical universes. Lawrence Kraus was critiqued for exactly that reason too, theories posit quantumn fields which aren't 'nothing'. From a philosophical perspective the issues tend to be that any notion of God suffers from the same logical problems as ny notion of an eternal universe with added baggage thus occams razor tends to decide the 'winner'.
"something comes from nothing" isn't the " In the beginning there was nothing, but then God.." Question: If there where nothing, were did God come from. As you can guess, I'm not religious and I see the bible the same way I see any other phantasy book. Harry Potter isn't real just because he is in THE book, but as a historical document it is fascinating. In 2000 year, when people read Harry Potter, they will read about the flying Ford Anglia. To see it as a historical text, they will have to apply a filter: Car is real, but it couldn't fly. Same goes with the bible. A lot of times I don't think Christians really understand the basics of their religion fx. the Nazis where not Christians and therefor had no moral......dude, your Skye guy is omnipotent. He invented Nazis, and the devil and plague and teletuppies and for that matter, atheists. If you want to read something fun and wise about gods, read Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods".
Holy Ghost? Are you serious? You actually believe that there is a Holy Ghost? Where is this Holy Ghost? I've seen no evidence of one. If I see/sense one - then I will change my views - But I'm 100% confident that this will never happen.
Excuse me, but the Holy Ghost has been proven to be real. Have you not seen the multiple true stories about *Casper* On the big screen it must be true.
Something cannot come from nothing. The universe is designed; people are designed. The irony here is takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.
Explain how "I do not believe YOUR CLAIM takes faith?. You claim the universe is designed, the onus is on you to prove it, ( personally I could not give a fuck either way, it has nothing to do with my being an atheist.) You claim "something cannot come from nothing" and attribute wrongly to all atheist, another claim, explain nothing, demonstrate it, you claim something cannot come from nothing, again who says it does, not this atheist that's for sure, and I personally know of no other that does, so what's your source all atheist say something comes from nothing, because I assure you it's nothing I have ever heard any atheist say or claim. Again I could not give a fuck either way, it has nothing to do with my being an atheist, the reason I'm an atheist is because in the whole history of the world not one person has ever demonstrated any gods to exist, it's the same reason I do not believe in fairies, that make mean a-fairist to you, or that unicorns exist, so according to you I'm an a-unicornist see how stupid that is.
_Something cannot come from nothing_ And yet, that is exactly what the bible claims happened. Also, as god is not nothing, where did he come from? _The universe is designed_ Designed for what, and for who? _people are designed_ For what purpose, for who? And why is the "design" so incredibly bad? Human bodies are filled with comically poor "design"
@@richardgregory3684 Exactly, they are all unevidenced claims, it's those that make claims that have the burden of proof, not the likes of atheist such as I to prove their gods do not exist. And if they that make the claim their gods exist they would not be asking us to prove they don't.
Just exactly WHO is saying something can't come from nothing? Certainly not science. They only people I hear say that are the Christians. We can't demonstrate a "nothing." Just like you can't demonstrate your god.
Even if you could call the Torah/bible/Quran evidence, it’s poor. For example, if the bible is egregiously faulty then the main character’s existence is likely fantasy. If the existence of Yahweh/Allah is a fiction then the god man/prophet Jesus cannot stand, nor any Abrahamic Prophet, such as Muhammad. Faith based on the contents of the bible/Quran is worthless for the following reasons… There is real historical evidence of John the Baptist, but not of the greater Jesus. There is historical evidence of Apollonius of Tyana, who allegedly ascended to heaven, similar to Jesus, but there is no extra biblical evidence of Jesus during his lifetime. There is an historical record of Jesus Ben Pandera but, no Jesus the Galilean outside of the bible. Nothing. There’s Jesus ben Ananias, a rude peasant, who went around Jerusalem in 66CE prophesying its fall in 70CE; he’s recorded in documents outside the bible, but not the biblical Jesus. His alleged disciples never wrote anything they were uneducated peasants. Contemporaries never recorded his miracles nor his troublesome nature. The bible account says he was widely known and a divisive figure that the Romans never recorded. Neither did the Jews. There were a number of people with the name Jesus, exhibiting Jesus behaviours, many have been recorded; but, not the Jesus of the bible. Was he a fiction? Indeed, you don’t require any actual person to have actually existed for a “reality” to grow from nothing. King Arthur and Robin Hood, along with William Tell? Of the Canaanite gods. El was the top god (sort of Roman Saturn) Ba’al (Jupiter) was next, then down the line was the war god Yahweh (Mars). The Jews nicked him and made him the creator. All nonsense. The first line of the bible is clearly incorrect. The Earth was formed at least 9.8 billion years after the heavens. How did the creator get that wrong? And, the rest of the creation is wrong. It’s as if an ancient ignorant tribe wrote it all by themselves, no god to help. There are no waters above the firmament, for a start. Heaven isn’t up there either, we’ve been there. The tribes of the Middle East wouldn’t have known oceans would be frozen but for the heat of the sun. Yet water filled the oceans and outer space, all with no sun. The light that made up the day was created before the sun. The ancients had no concept it was the sun that caused day and night. The moon isn’t a light. It’s fiction by an ignorant tribe with no access to a god creator. Adam was made from dirt by magic and he, this god, forgot about Eve, an afterthought. so not an all knowing and wise god then? Snakes and donkeys talk, nonsense fiction, right up there with Harry Potter, though JK Rowling was clearly a better writer with fewer continuity errors. This god set up Eve by placing this magic apple within her reach, before she knew right from wrong. Then punished humanity thereafter. What a vicious god, if not a fictional one. Nonsense fiction, by an ignorant ancient people writing about their mythology, their nation’s origins, steeped in the mists of the past, just the same as the Greek, Persian and Babylonian cultures write about their make believe gods who were equally fervently worshipped. Inanna, the dying and rising goddess was such an example. But many more dying and rising gods in the lexicon of ancient myths. Virgin births were pretty common too. Adam and Eve’s children (as Eve was a clone of Adam) and grandchildren (as Cain, Able and Seth only had Eve to produce offspring or with their unknown sisters) could only have been produced by incest, then double incest, according to the biblical account. But, as Eve was a clone of Adam, there would be no genetic diversity, we’d all be identical. We’re not. Or, such a lack of diversity would have meant the death of the human species, ask the Hapsburgs. The Exodus apparently didn’t happen according to all evidence, acknowledged by the Jewish archaeologists who have tried to find it. The Egyptians never wrote of their army being swallowed by the sea. Mosses may never existed. There is a massive amount of genocide in the bible by a god who failed to get the locals to behave. Genocide because the Israelites needed a land to make home. If a creator of the universe and humans could have just thought a new land, a new island, south of Cyprus, it would have appeared. Easy for a god, not so for an ancient tribe to pull off? Then, this god could have told these others how to behave and punished individuals, if that’s what was needed. But no, he went straight to mass murder. What? And, the greatest god in the universe was defeated by iron chariots: Judges1:19. That is so ridiculous, such a puny god. Or, is it because the story was a creation of a tribe that had no concept of future technologies or tactics to defeat these new Iron Age chariots? I’m sure that a human Napoleon type tactician could have done better than the all wise, all powerful fictitious creator god. Genesis 19 tells us of Lot being raped by this daughters. And yet this god is moral? He could have changed the course of their predicament, found him a younger wife or servant to sleep with, if a god. More incest. Abrahamic religion is a blood sacrifice barbaric religion. The books that were supposedly written by Mosses consist of a linguistic style that didn’t exist at the time of his “life”. It’s a fictitious narrative, written by the Jews to give their new nation an historical legitimacy, and unify them, in the midst of other powerful cultures in the Middle East. Didn’t help much though, they were constantly being invaded and subjugated by more powerful “gods” of other warring nations. Even Yahweh acknowledged there were other gods. Remember the Ten Commandments tablets that were conveniently broken and then without fuss, lost. An all powerful creator of the universe who missed the opportunity to create the tablets out of an advanced technology, such as, I don’t know, Titanium? Is that because the Jews didn’t know about such a thing and so had no understanding of the future? The forging of such a technology would have cemented the truth of their god. Broken disappeared stone tablets: clearly, no god involved. Convenient. Noah and his flood occurred when the Egyptians where going about their cultural and religious practices that continued afterwards; and, their religion was not replaced by the flood family’s immediate ancestors, fanning out from the ark. The Pharaohs and their gods continued unabated. No Yahweh? More incest? The Chinese culture and writing developed along a continuum and they too were never taken the religion of Yahweh from the Middle East, by Noah’s relatives. And, the ancient Britons and Australians failed to notice they were meant to be dead. The New Testament, if it is read, critically, is inconsistent and evolves over time. Indeed, the gospels were not written for decades after the death of this Jesus, whose birth and death are still questionable and no date can be asserted with clarity. There’s no evidence that all the first born were killed either in Egypt nor by Herod. I think the Egyptians would have recorded such a calamity and the calamities of the plagues, but nothing. Was it all made up? There was no census when Herod was alive, that story was made up after the event to allow the Nazarene to be born in the town of David. Nazareth was not a town in the first century and was only “discovered“ when Constantine’s mother, Helena, went looking for it. The gospel writers mistook the word Nazarene for a town. And there are many problems with the census and the way it is told. Because it was written as fact over one hundred years after the supposed birth of this Jesus. More fiction? And, the crucified were left to rot on the cross/pole on which they were hung as a warning to insurrectionists? No empty tomb, it’s a fiction to turn a myth into a “fact”. To turn a dead man or a fictional man into god. Pilate was, in real history, recorded history, a truly nasty contemptuous man, he would never have allowed the process of crucifixion as a warning to have been undermined. And, the alleged trial is a tale of the blood cult of scapegoating. Even Barabbus was a literary device representing scapegoating, suggesting it never occurred. Barabbus means, son of the teacher, or son of the father. The gospel writers where representing the two characters as essentially the same, one became the goat sacrifice. And, the twist was that the Jews shouted to let the murderer go, allowing the blame for Jesus’s death to be placed on the Jews and not the imperial Romans. It was very much a political narrative because the Jews and Romans where essentially at war, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD/CE, and this new sect/cult needed to distinguish themselves from the Jewish troublemakers, and the ongoing violence of the time. Paul never knew Jesus and only depicted him as a spiritual vision. He knew nothing of the man and nothing of his life or his teachings. More evidence that the Chrestos (anointed) was mythical? The first time the gospels were mentioned was in 180AD/CE by Irenaeus. Indeed, a very prominent Christian, Theophilus, said that he came to believe in Jesus from reading the Jewish Scriptures or, Torah. No mention of the gospels, no quoting of anything Jesus allegedly said. Best date for the gospels is circa, 170-182AD/CE. The myth of the god man Jesus was created over many years. Mark was first written, not until at least 70AD/CE, say Christian scholars but, as above, likely much later. No record of the star of Bethlehem, of the graves emptying, or the sky darkening. It’s fiction. No Mosses, Abraham, No Noah, no Flood. As for flying horses in the Quran, that’s straight out of Greek mythology, and no one should believe in such nonsense today.
Your argument about objective morality is completely unsustainable. You can say that some moral rules come close to being objective and some are completely subjective, but the absolute and objective moral rules do not exist. And if they existed, your God certainly has violated them and ordered humans to violate them. In reality, the moral rules that we mostly follow are consistent with the evolution of our societies and communities, where crude moral rules existed since the very beginning and humans and human organizations developed them until our days.
Why have you opted for the myth of a near eastern prophet as your belief rather than the works of Plato that provided the foundation for social kindness that predate the gospels? How do you consolidate Matthew 2 with Luke 2 considering the dead of Herod and the census quirinius are 10 years apart? You mentioned the Nazis. You do know the Nazis were theists, right? I genuinely think you are grifting since you have played typical athiest strawman examples that have already, and many times, been put to rest.
Even if you could call the Torah/bible/Quran evidence, it’s poor. For example, if the bible is egregiously faulty then the main character’s existence is likely fantasy. If the existence of Yahweh/Allah is a fiction then the god man/prophet Jesus cannot stand, nor any Abrahamic Prophet, such as Muhammad. Faith based on the contents of the bible/Quran is worthless for the following reasons… There is real historical evidence of John the Baptist, but not of the greater Jesus. There is historical evidence of Apollonius of Tyana, who allegedly ascended to heaven, similar to Jesus, but there is no extra biblical evidence of Jesus during his lifetime. There is an historical record of Jesus Ben Pandera but, no Jesus the Galilean outside of the bible. Nothing. There’s Jesus ben Ananias, a rude peasant, who went around Jerusalem in 66CE prophesying its fall in 70CE; he’s recorded in documents outside the bible, but not the biblical Jesus. His alleged disciples never wrote anything they were uneducated peasants. Contemporaries never recorded his miracles nor his troublesome nature. The bible account says he was widely known and a divisive figure that the Romans never recorded. Neither did the Jews. There were a number of people with the name Jesus, exhibiting Jesus behaviours, many have been recorded; but, not the Jesus of the bible. Was he a fiction? Indeed, you don’t require any actual person to have actually existed for a “reality” to grow from nothing. King Arthur and Robin Hood, along with William Tell? Of the Canaanite gods. El was the top god (sort of Roman Saturn) Ba’al (Jupiter) was next, then down the line was the war god Yahweh (Mars). The Jews nicked him and made him the creator. All nonsense. The first line of the bible is clearly incorrect. The Earth was formed at least 9.8 billion years after the heavens. How did the creator get that wrong? And, the rest of the creation is wrong. It’s as if an ancient ignorant tribe wrote it all by themselves, no god to help. There are no waters above the firmament, for a start. Heaven isn’t up there either, we’ve been there. The tribes of the Middle East wouldn’t have known oceans would be frozen but for the heat of the sun. Yet water filled the oceans and outer space, all with no sun. The light that made up the day was created before the sun. The ancients had no concept it was the sun that caused day and night. The moon isn’t a light. It’s fiction by an ignorant tribe with no access to a god creator. Adam was made from dirt by magic and he, this god, forgot about Eve, an afterthought. so not an all knowing and wise god then? Snakes and donkeys talk, nonsense fiction, right up there with Harry Potter, though JK Rowling was clearly a better writer with fewer continuity errors. This god set up Eve by placing this magic apple within her reach, before she knew right from wrong. Then punished humanity thereafter. What a vicious god, if not a fictional one. Nonsense fiction, by an ignorant ancient people writing about their mythology, their nation’s origins, steeped in the mists of the past, just the same as the Greek, Persian and Babylonian cultures write about their make believe gods who were equally fervently worshipped. Inanna, the dying and rising goddess was such an example. But many more dying and rising gods in the lexicon of ancient myths. Virgin births were pretty common too. Adam and Eve’s children (as Eve was a clone of Adam) and grandchildren (as Cain, Able and Seth only had Eve to produce offspring or with their unknown sisters) could only have been produced by incest, then double incest, according to the biblical account. But, as Eve was a clone of Adam, there would be no genetic diversity, we’d all be identical. We’re not. Or, such a lack of diversity would have meant the death of the human species, ask the Hapsburgs. The Exodus apparently didn’t happen according to all evidence, acknowledged by the Jewish archaeologists who have tried to find it. The Egyptians never wrote of their army being swallowed by the sea. Mosses may never existed. There is a massive amount of genocide in the bible by a god who failed to get the locals to behave. Genocide because the Israelites needed a land to make home. If a creator of the universe and humans could have just thought a new land, a new island, south of Cyprus, it would have appeared. Easy for a god, not so for an ancient tribe to pull off? Then, this god could have told these others how to behave and punished individuals, if that’s what was needed. But no, he went straight to mass murder. What? And, the greatest god in the universe was defeated by iron chariots: Judges1:19. That is so ridiculous, such a puny god. Or, is it because the story was a creation of a tribe that had no concept of future technologies or tactics to defeat these new Iron Age chariots? I’m sure that a human Napoleon type tactician could have done better than the all wise, all powerful fictitious creator god. Genesis 19 tells us of Lot being raped by this daughters. And yet this god is moral? He could have changed the course of their predicament, found him a younger wife or servant to sleep with, if a god. More incest. Abrahamic religion is a blood sacrifice barbaric religion. The books that were supposedly written by Mosses consist of a linguistic style that didn’t exist at the time of his “life”. It’s a fictitious narrative, written by the Jews to give their new nation an historical legitimacy, and unify them, in the midst of other powerful cultures in the Middle East. Didn’t help much though, they were constantly being invaded and subjugated by more powerful “gods” of other warring nations. Even Yahweh acknowledged there were other gods. Remember the Ten Commandments tablets that were conveniently broken and then without fuss, lost. An all powerful creator of the universe who missed the opportunity to create the tablets out of an advanced technology, such as, I don’t know, Titanium? Is that because the Jews didn’t know about such a thing and so had no understanding of the future? The forging of such a technology would have cemented the truth of their god. Broken disappeared stone tablets: clearly, no god involved. Convenient. Noah and his flood occurred when the Egyptians where going about their cultural and religious practices that continued afterwards; and, their religion was not replaced by the flood family’s immediate ancestors, fanning out from the ark. The Pharaohs and their gods continued unabated. No Yahweh? More incest? The Chinese culture and writing developed along a continuum and they too were never taken the religion of Yahweh from the Middle East, by Noah’s relatives. And, the ancient Britons and Australians failed to notice they were meant to be dead. The New Testament, if it is read, critically, is inconsistent and evolves over time. Indeed, the gospels were not written for decades after the death of this Jesus, whose birth and death are still questionable and no date can be asserted with clarity. There’s no evidence that all the first born were killed either in Egypt nor by Herod. I think the Egyptians would have recorded such a calamity and the calamities of the plagues, but nothing. Was it all made up? There was no census when Herod was alive, that story was made up after the event to allow the Nazarene to be born in the town of David. Nazareth was not a town in the first century and was only “discovered“ when Constantine’s mother, Helena, went looking for it. The gospel writers mistook the word Nazarene for a town. And there are many problems with the census and the way it is told. Because it was written as fact over one hundred years after the supposed birth of this Jesus. More fiction? And, the crucified were left to rot on the cross/pole on which they were hung as a warning to insurrectionists? No empty tomb, it’s a fiction to turn a myth into a “fact”. To turn a dead man or a fictional man into god. Pilate was, in real history, recorded history, a truly nasty contemptuous man, he would never have allowed the process of crucifixion as a warning to have been undermined. And, the alleged trial is a tale of the blood cult of scapegoating. Even Barabbus was a literary device representing scapegoating, suggesting it never occurred. Barabbus means, son of the teacher, or son of the father. The gospel writers where representing the two characters as essentially the same, one became the goat sacrifice. And, the twist was that the Jews shouted to let the murderer go, allowing the blame for Jesus’s death to be placed on the Jews and not the imperial Romans. It was very much a political narrative because the Jews and Romans where essentially at war, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD/CE, and this new sect/cult needed to distinguish themselves from the Jewish troublemakers, and the ongoing violence of the time. Paul never knew Jesus and only depicted him as a spiritual vision. He knew nothing of the man and nothing of his life or his teachings. More evidence that the Chrestos (anointed) was mythical? The first time the gospels were mentioned was in 180AD/CE by Irenaeus. Indeed, a very prominent Christian, Theophilus, said that he came to believe in Jesus from reading the Jewish Scriptures or, Torah. No mention of the gospels, no quoting of anything Jesus allegedly said. Best date for the gospels is circa, 170-182AD/CE. The myth of the god man Jesus was created over many years. Mark was first written, not until at least 70AD/CE, say Christian scholars but, as above, likely much later. No record of the star of Bethlehem, of the graves emptying, or the sky darkening. It’s fiction. No Mosses, Abraham, No Noah, no Flood. As for flying horses in the Quran, that’s straight out of Greek mythology, and no one should believe in such nonsense today.
Based on the summary at the end... If I became an atheist: - I would have to believe that something comes from nothing. - I'd have to believe that morality is an illusion. - I'd have to believe that rationality arises from non-rationality. - I'd have to believe that order arises from disorder. - and I'd have to believe that all of the miracle claims including the resurrection of Christ. (I'd have to believe that all of those every single one of them, without fail, aren't true.) But all those things do seem true to me. And so: - It does seem to me that we live in a miraculous world. - It doesn’t seem to me that order arises from disorder. - It doesn't seem to me that rationality arises from non-rationality. - It doesn't seem like morality is an illusion. - It doesn't seem to me that something comes from nothing. “Rather it seems to me that once I believe Christianity all these other facets of my experience make sense. More than that, I've come to know Jesus as my savior and he's proven himself to me time and time again.”
My, my, that's a lot of claims you have attributed to All atheist, and everyone a strawman. Learn what the fuck an atheist is FFS. Clue,it's not what your so called lying pastors tell you. An atheist is simply a private, independent individual that does not believe your claimed gods exist, nothing more, nothing less,anything other than that attributed to all atheist are falsehood, malicious and intentionally so. youCLAIM your gods exist, the burden of proof is yours.
I am an open-minded atheist that will begin to believe in a god the moment I have reasonable evidence. An all-powerful, all-knowing, loving deity that knows my thoughts and truly wants to have a relationship with me would have found a way to communicate 40 years ago.
Wow, so many fallacies. 1. If there is a moral law there has to be a moral law giver. Does that mean if you were not christian you would be immoral. What about the massive amount of what I would consider immoral( rape, slavery, genocide, incest)in the book which you are dedicated. It seems we conventionally ignore all the horrible parts of the christian bible. You do not get to claim high moral ground when your religion is and has been responsible for countless atrocities throughout the years. If I was going to contrive why human morality developed I would say because we are social creature that depend on each other. It seems simple, it serves everyone well if we treat each other morally. "Ape together strong". Nazis? Before you mention Nazis you might want to check the relationship between christianity and the Nazi party . You will find they were close enough that you probably want to drop that reference. I was going to counter every augment on this video, but it is pointless. It is also funny to me when religious people claim they were not indoctrinated. Do you honestly believe if you were born and raised on a goat farm in the middle of Islam, Hindu, Shinto, or any countless other religions country you would adapt christianity. I would say not likely. Just as unlikely someone like me born and raised in a very small town in the middle of the bible belt converting to Hinduism.
Right... There is no evolution... The worlds and beings were created. By whom? / By what? There are several mythologies/creation narratives, just as there are many peoples and cultures. Nothing proves that it was Jehovah (Hebrew mythology). How can we prove that the various narrations now put together in a Bible are the real thing? It could be a being that doesn't even want to reveal itself... Atheism? Theism? Which deity(ies)/creator(s)?
Whenever I have the slightest doubt that the Bible narrative is true, all I have to do is let myself remember the two times before I was a believer that the demons that were obviously possessing me SPOKE AUDIBLY - although telepathically - to me back in the ‘90’s; first with approval of a heretical belief I was contemplating (that “Mary” was the feminine half of God) and they urged me to tell that belief to my son; and later, when I was contemplating the truth of the scriptural account of the reality of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, sent to provide himself a sacrifice to liberate us from our sins, with guttural screams of anger (still telepathically but very real). The fact that this really happened to me is all the proof I need and is what made me know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the claims of scripture are true. My written testimony - penned a couple of decades ago- is accessible from my RU-vid page.
Is There Really A God Who Judges Sin? While there are many who have called themselves God or gods over the millenia, have any of them shown an ability to actually judge sins? The god of the Quran has never shown that ability. The gods of the Hindu scriptures have never shown any ability to judge. The god of the Book of Mormon has never shown that he actually judges anyone. Literally, in the history of man, the only God Who has shown that He judges sinners in real life is the God of the Bible. Throughout the Bible He pronounced judgments on cities and civilizations, and history has shown that they have come true just as promised hundreds or in some cases thousands of years earlier. The God of the Bible pronounced specific judgments on the cities Jerusalem, (Luke 21, 20-24) Nineveh, (Zephaniah 2:13-15) Samaria, (Micah 1:5-9) Tyre, Exekiel 36) Ashkelon, (Zephaniah 2:4-7) Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida, (Matthew 11:20-24) and many others. In every case the pronounced judgment came true. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but they came true. The God of the Bible pronounced specific long term, or permanent judgments on the Hebrew civilization, (Ezekiel 36-38) the Edomite (Ezekiel 25:13-14) civilization, the Philistine civilization, (Ezekiel 25;15-17) and many others because of their sins. Once again, history confirms that the pronounced judgments came true. There are many religions that tell me to fear their gods. But there is no God, except the God of the Bible Who has demonstrated that He actually judges sinners in real life. He is the only God to follow. And He is to be followed according to the book He has given us, the Holy Bible. Are You Good Enough to go to Heaven? (The 10 Commandment Test) The Bible is supernatural in origin, therefore take heed to its promise of Heaven and warning of Hell. The Ten Commandments says “Thou shalt not kill.” Have you ever murdered? If you have you are a murderer. It says “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Have you ever lied? If you have you are a liar. (Think: If one little murder would make you a murderer, then one little lie makes you a liar.) It says “Thou shalt not steal.” Have you ever stolen? Ever? Anything? If you have you are a thief. It says “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” Have you ever used the name God or Jesus as cuss words. If you have you are a blasphemer. Jesus said that if we even look at someone with lust, we are adulterers at heart. Have you ever looked with lust? We have only looked at five of the commandments, yet if God were to judge you by the 10 commandments would you be innocent or guilty? If you have said yes to any of these questions, you are guilty and cannot stand before a holy God. Do you really think a Holy God is going to let murderers, liars, thieves, blasphemers and adulterers into heaven? The Bible says. “. . . all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Revelation 21:8) You desperately need a Savior. The Bible says: But God commendeth His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ, God the Son, died on the cross and paid for all your sins. The Bible teaches that He literally took the entire punishment that was coming to us for our sins, so that we could be forgiven and freely allowed into Heaven. He rose from the dead, and now wants to forgive you and save you from the sins that condemn you. He will give you a salvation that will not only forgive you, but it will turn you away from those sins that are destroying you. If you will repent of your sins, (name them) and trust Him for forgiveness and salvation, He promises: “Believe (trust in, rely on, cling to) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16
The first thing that you need to correct in your thinking is that there is no "atheist world view". Atheist are just people who have not been presented evidence to believe the claim that a god exists. Secondly, your ignorance to how the world works everyday is on full display. You even claimed to not know anything about any of it. Maybe get out of the fiction section of the library and start doing real research. Have a great day.
Thanks for popping in Scott. I did try to address the worldview question in my video. I think it’s possible that an atheist could deny the existence of God, but affirm other supernatural entities, but in my experience most atheists that I’ve encountered have been naturalist and/or materialists. All the best!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That was the main problem with your video. You kept trying to strawman an "atheist world view", but there isn't an "atheist world view". So just stop trying to create one. The only thing you can do is find and present real evidence that backs your claim. Trying to strawman and say the other side has no answers, doesn't make your claims true. So, talking about anything other than real evidence for your claim, is a waste of time.
The statement "atheism is false" alone is just.. evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am not convinced that your god exists, that's what atheism means. You're an atheist toward.. Zeus, or Thor. You just happen to think your particular deity is special and don't even consider others because you're wrapped up in a cult. I'm not, so the perspective is... drastically different. I'm not even sure (assuming you're being honest) you understand how people in general work because of your religious background. Your god has nothing to do with morals, not even in your own religious group. People choose what is acceptable and what isn't.
