@@samuelpruett6699 There are many extravagant tales in "Christianity" that include the demonic Trinity, God is approachable and panders to you to the extent that no matter what you say and do in defiance of Him He loves you so much He forgives you, Jesus was fully man and fully God, at the final wash up everyone I assume including satan will be saved to the New Jerusalem, Jesus took the rap on the cross for everyone, Jesus was sinless a human, to be human is to sin, Jesus is God so he can't be an angel which he is, the head angel, Mary was a perpetual virgin, Michael is superior to Jesus, Jesus was taught by John the Baptist, John the Baptist was the Messiah, God is Melchizedek...... it is I believe very important to study the Bible daily after prayer to Jesus for his spirit to teach you God's Truth.
@Ahin Johny I was merely referring to all the extravagant tales re the gospel that abound in this fallen world at to which I am called to ignore. Another extravagant tale is the interpretation of Colossians 2 : 13 - 15 God made you alive with Christ, when you were dead in your sins and were still uncircumcised gentiles. He forgave you all your sins and wiped out the charge-list which set out all your self-admitted debts, a charge-list which was based on the ordinances of the law and which was is in direct opposition to you. He nailed it to his Cross and put it right out of sight. He stripped the powers and authorities of all their power and publicly put them to shame and, through the Cross, led them captive in his triumphal train. That interpretation is that from Jesus's crucifixion no matter what you say and do inspired by satan will always be forgiven!!! I suggest the Truth is that prior to Jesus coming as the ultimate prophet the previous prophets were all put to death by satan represented by the evil "clergy" BUT satan's ability to lead astray by means of his demon in you was not stopped. Jesus's awful, vicious, diabolical nailing to the cross ended satan's work = his directing you through his demon but only for God's children, Jesus's brothers.
@Hudson Hawk6 Introduced you? What do you mean by that? The gospel? Philosophical evidence? Historical evidence for Jesus and the resurrection? When you say introduce you to him, what do you mean? What do you mean met him? If we met God, we would be bodily dead
@@CedanyTheAlaskan yes exactly we can't physically experience God in this dimension with our present bodies. That is why we are appointed new bodies. Praise the Lord. Jesus is the resurrection and for those of born again, we will be changed in an instant. Could be really really soon with all that is going on!
The new Testes is also hearsay since these letters, 'gospels' and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. There is essentially very little evidence of a Jesus in real documented history. A couple of spurious Roman reports, and all the rest anecdotal. ...but more importantly ...a jesus' existence is not an issue! A jesus is irrelevant without a god ! Then, many of these stories, but not all, as many were not chosen, [ There are more than just four Gospels but only these four were agreed on ], were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor in his Nicean Council, for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognised that this was the perfect religion/mythology for the future domination of the populaces. Half of the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops and none have been proven to be based on fact. This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence. It is not proof for any god(s) ....(or of any jesus as a god...) The fables are intertwined within historical places and people... eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed, whereas Moses and the Exodus did not happen...! It is a historical novel .... ie A book of fiction.. Only! The Bible book is proof of a book ... ONLY (certainly not evidence of any gods...) PROVE a god!
" please tell me what is fallacious about asking little franky, or indeed you, to provide credible evidence of the God he claims and pointing out logical fallacies if they occur? " There's nothing wrong with that. That is infact what I am doing if you look at my other comments. I'm an atheist arguing AGAINST Frank, it seems that you firing at the wrong person here Nick.
Generic White Male You'll have to watch more of his videos but a large part of the 'proof' used is in the form of arguments. Like the Cosmological argument which states: Everything that begins has a cause The uinverse began Therefore it has a cause This does not prove God exists but it does show that something caused the universe to happen and that cause would have to be: Spaceless (since it created space) Timeless (since it created time) Immaterial (same as above, can't be made up of whatever it created) Possessing a mind (since inanimate objects can not act, they can only react) And immensely powerful (since whatever this cause was had enough power to set things in motion) No one knows for sure what that cause is. Christians maintain though that this cause likely was God and use the Bible to show that this cause fits its description of God and also has an account of when God came down to interact with us (Jesus). If you're asking for proof, as in, something we can test in a lab then no, we can't prove God exists. The best we can do is look at the evidence, largely things that happened that can't be explained sufficiently by nature (like nature being created in the first place).
Generic White Male well before we get to that, I'm interested in your first comment. It looks like you have a moral objection to God. No amount of evidence will help in that case, that has to be done later. So would you say that God is immoral?
+Generic White Male I agree that is the Oxford definition, however, I find issue with it because it makes an assumption that I don't think many people consider. In the definition it states that morality is something basically that was agreed on. Does that mean that, when it comes to something like rape, you believe it's wrong because we've agreed that it is wrong or do you believe it is wrong objectively? As in, regardless of anyone's opinions.
I will prepare my children for a life with the lost and atheists. I will show them atheist arguments and beliefs and show them why they are wrong. I do not want my children to wind up in a place where they will be influenced by the lost.
" I will show them atheist arguments and beliefs and show them why they are wrong." How about this? you raise your kids and teach them the value of pure logic, to avoid fallacies and dogmatic perspectives, give them acess to scientific articles and books from BOTH perspectives. Then your kids can make decisions on their own and if you truly are representing a logically sound position then you have nothing to fear. As for atheists arguments, I will give you one. You have yet to prove that god exist, which means that I reject your worldview untill you do. Go ahead and disprove it.
Ludvig Burman I believe that if anyone were to use unbiased “pure logic” they would come to the conclusion that God does in fact exist. That He came to this earth and reconciled the world into himself, not imputing our trespasses unto us, and committing unto us the word of reconciliation. My children will learn science with an understanding that, as Dr. Turek said, science says nothing, and that the conclusion scientists come to are based off of their biases and pre-determined beliefs. “You have yet to prove that God* exist, which means that I reject your worldview untill you do.” God will prove himself to all when He returns. If you were to fully consider who and what God is and then think that he would subject himself to scientific studies by His creation is ridiculous. He has provided evidence for his existence and walked this earth to be crucified on a cross for the sins of you and me. The evidence for God is obvious and all around us. The design of the universe, of creation, of you and me. The evidence of the Gospel which the disciples gave their lives to share it with the world. God loves you, and He has the power to forgive you your sins and to save you from condemnation and an eternity in Hell.
Hallelujah! Wow! This is sooo interesting and good for our battle against the dark forces in this world. You get closer to God when listening and watching this! Knowledge is power! As a follower of Jesus Christ, this just makes me want to seek God more and more and really feel his Love for me. I pray for everyone here that has and hasn't found Jesus yet. He is God. Jesus dies for you! Repent, and turn to him. He will stand there with his arms wide open and hug you and comfort you. He is The Way, The Truth and The Life. No one comes to the father except through Jesus. Hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah! Amen! ❤🙏🙏🙏
But he offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever for his claim there is a god. He simply asserted it. That's not the same as providing a reason to believe it's true.
@@philb4462 his channel cross examine is filled with it. And as he said science doesn't say but scientists do. So don't think science disproved it actually any guy with proper sense will understand that nothing can't create a stable system called universe through explosion at perfect point. Stop kidding that doesn't exist I know he does, not me but those Newton, Einstein max plank ( father of quantum physics) and hundreds of highly classed scientists did. It's simple why we can't simply see God as we see our world or why can't we just reach to him but just has to be faith in him. So answer is in our science those that are testable, reproducible and falsifiable can be fitted. But can you even do one of this to God of course no and that's why he said to just have faith and m God comes through unexplainable ways.
@@anashwarmonrajan3110 I have watched several videos of his. I have often seen him make assertions but not once have I seen him offer any evidence at all. So if you think evidence is on his channel, the onus is on you. Give me a link to a video with a time stamp. Note very carefully: I don't want a time stamp for a claim. I can find those. I want a time stamp to evidence. I would be amazed if you can provide one but would be very happy to be proved wrong.
He explains it, with great charisma! Not in a dry and dull manner. His book: Stealing From God - Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case, is one of my top 10 apologetics books of all time. Hope you've got it. Cheers.
Again, thats mens fault, God is only responsible for Adam and Eve, no-one else.... Adam and Eve is responsible for humanity. God created them in perfect-state, after disobeying God everything ripples away from perfection thus natural disasters exist, Birth defects exist etc We still got a chance to win Gods grace back, through Jesus Christ... which is a great gift, also free, take advantage meanwhile it last!
God is *1* _infinite_ supreme Being, He *never* had an origin, yet He is the originator, He will *never* cease to exist; He is interminable, constant, continual, uninterrupted, everlasting and all powerful. *God is unique, no one is above Him, beside Himself-repeatedly*
So the weather was always perfect in the time of Adam & Eve, and then as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit, the weather started going out of control? Doesn't seem logical that a decision made by humans would have an external effect on the weather. The point is, in your worldview, God was the one that created all the conditions in which these terrible things happen. Did he have to make it _possible_ for cancer to exist? Did he have to make it _possible_ for birth defects to happen? All of those *conditions* were created by no one but God. So answer me this: do you think God would be happier with the state of humanity if we (a) never ate from the tree of knowledge and thus never sinned, or (b) ate from the tree of knowledge and can now sin? Because if you chose (a), then why did he create the tree in first place? If you chose (b), then why did he create Adam & Eve perfect, only to doom them by creating a snake that'll tempt them?
Your amazing Frank Turek. As Jesus called Saint Paul for a special mission :spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Because Paul had this particular character and knowledge and courage maybe....?I think God respects ones personality and calls to different missions depending on ones capacities. God chose you and I use Facebook to show your apologetic work. My Jesus Our Lord to carry on giving you strength and assistance to spread Is Salvation. God bless you and your family.
He keeps this meme of "scientists claim to disprove God" alive through his usual dishonesty despite everyone on the science side denying that. They simply say there's not enough evidence to prove either way, and so they don't believe. He creates a false dichotomy. The only time he shows the truth here about himself is when he makes the "joke" about hungry children and then of course reveals the money is for him
God didn't create deformed children, He originated Adam and Eve in perfectly-state, after the fail 'prohibit fruit' everything ran away from perfection (God) and the cause for deformed and bad-morality rising sharply is because we are living w/o Gods grace.
God is only responsible for Adam and Eve after that is the humans fault, not Gods. also God is responsible for the *FACT* of free-will, and humans are responsible for the *ACT* of free-will.
Again, God only created Adam and Eve, its Adams fault for expand humanity, (w/o Gods protection, because the knowledge of good and evil became possible, and human optimize evil on top of good) God knows what He is doing, God created lucifer for a purpose, lucifer was perfect in his image and envy God image, see how over-perfect God is? evilness is the absence of God (good) God is the standard of good.
The problem is this: I think there is enough evidence that God exists. Laws of nature, complexity of life, beauty etc. However, as soon as someone asks "What is God like?" It becomes about religion.
Great Job Frank! I'm a big fan!! Although i disagree with the fact that homosexuals are more condemned than you and me. We are adulterers by nature according to Jesus. That means we do not inherit the kingdom of God either. Only one way to be saved Rom 10:8-10
*@Generic White Male* It seems like you've run-out-of things to say. Good day, mate :-) I leave you with this final message: You need to swallow up your pride and repent to your Creator. None of your good deeds are enough to perfectly measure up to God's perfect moral standard on Judgement Day. That's BAD news for you and everyone else, none of us are morally perfect, we constantly do bad deeds (lying, stealing,etc). Either we eternally pay for our sins or TRUST in the one (Jesus the Son of God) who paid for our sins for eternity. I urge you to choose the latter instead of the former. Sincerely repent and put your trust in Christ as your Lord and Saviour who died for your/mine/everyone's sins and rose from the dead to reaffirm that promise. This is your one-and-only life on Earth to make that choice. CHOOSE WISELY! :-)
We all have sinned against God, and that makes us deserving of hell. Yet God loves us sooo much that, ““For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” -John 3:16! If you repent (to change your mind about God, to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He is our God) and put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, then you will be saved! And do not wait either, because you do not know when you will die. And once you die, it will be too late. God wants to save you, even right now, because He loves you more than you know it!!
Frank lies. Stephen Weinberg did not claim that sciences disproved God. What he actually said: “Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible not to believe in God” ― Steven Weinberg IF YOU HAVE TO LIE TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEFS, IT IS TIME TO GET NEW BELIEFS.
+G Will hey man, that's a great testimony! What do you mean by your unwilling atheism? Would you say that you were somewhat resistant to the Gospel back when you were an "agnostic atheist"?
*@G Will* Yes,praise God for that! It sounds like you were in the minority of atheist truth-seekers :-P I've never been an atheist (nor agnostic), so I find it hard to sympathize with atheists who I interact with and at times I wonder if deep down, their rejection of God is really genuine or rooted in emotions. I can sympathize with a Deist at best, but I can't with an atheist. I don't know, but even the more admirable "smarter atheists" (e.g: Graham Oppy) , they seem darn smart than the average "militant atheist", but when it comes to God, it's like they've a blind spot. It's indeed strange that a smart person could embrace a worldview that implies nihilism yet live as though everything matters.
You don't have to be particularly smart to spot that Turek offers absolutely no evidence here for his claims that a god exists. He just asserts it. You do have to be gullible to take his word for it though.
'what makes you think that there is no evidence?' The fact that whenever anyone asks for evidence, theists cant provide any.... 'The universe came into existence, without God it is impossible to get this fine tuned universe.' these are just baseless claims. what reason do you have to believe either of these??
@@somerandom3247 yeah, what's up with atheists not understanding logic? Believing that God designed everything is completely logical and it just so happens that the Christian God fits the criteria for the being that could make that possible, it fits better within what we already know about the universe and human experience unlike any other god brought forth by religion. If you deny this even being a logical idea, then you have some serious emotional bias, inconsistent scepticism and live in denial brother..
A good question for you I guess would be, what would you accept as evidence? I heard Richard Dawkins say that he used to say that if something happened that defied the laws of physics, but now he said that if something miraculous happened, he said he would argue that maybe it was aliens who were intelligent enough to cause things to happen on earth hahaha! That’s pretty crazy and he’s basically saying there’s nothing that he would accept as evidence which he admits contradicts the way that people operate in science. Anyway, I guess you should ask yourself that question if you haven’t thought about it before. If you wanna share feel free man. I would be interested to hear it
Ernesto Gomez - I hope you know that that's not what Dawkins actually thinks happened. He only says that it _could be possible_ that aliens were responsible for creating life on Earth, but only in the sense that, at this point, we simply DO NOT KNOW how it actually happened. He's just more inclined to think that way because at least we have good reason to think that we're not the only planet in the universe with life on it.
Bob the Atheist That's not his point, he's saying that nothing could convince him that God exists, that even IF god aligned the stars to say, Hey Richard, I am God and I do exist, he will be forced to assume that aliens did it so nothing will ever convince him, many scientists are like this and it's not a good way to hold a position. Every theory needs to have a way it could be proven and refuted. There are many ways Christianity could be disproven, but so far it hasn't. If you think otherwise than you're the one who is being irrational and inconsistent with your scepticism..
Roberto Esquivel - I'll be honest. If one day the stars said that, it would freak me out. But I would first at least try to determine if someone was playing a trick on me, and then, check myself into a mental hospital. If everything after all that checks out, then I would probably be pretty convinced. So in that regard, I would not completely agree with Dawkins. With that said, I would like to point out that everyone that has claimed to have witnessed something supernatural has been proven a fraud. Faith healing, finding Jesus's blood, Bibles that seep oil... it's all fake. So there's definitely plenty of reason to doubt anything supernatural claimed by a Christian.
She took barts first day quiz and realized none of the Christian’s even took the time to teacher the Bible before teaching her the stories of the Bible..
The question"If Christianity were true would you become a christian?" is the question Mr Turek argues he would put to non-believers. However, should we not also ask what is there in Christianity that is of such importance to the non-believer? Because it demands the truth of its many varied parts. Should we for instance abandon our families even to hate them in favour of Jesus? Should we puck out an eye or cut off hand if it offends us? And if we employ a servant should we beat our servant if we are displeased with our servant's work? Let us look at what the Gospels say- "If any man come to me, and HATE NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26. "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matt 10:37. "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." - Luke 12:47. If Hate, Beatings and Self inflicted injury, are a true part of Christianity then it contains an unsavoury truth.
"Wait, wait, wait. I always thought the most important contribution a professor could make would be to teach his young students truth so they could be better citizens...". It is, and that is exactly what Weinberg meant. Doh!
These guys are trying to tell the world that we can exist together with extreme difference in opinions and not kill each other. We can talk about out difference and accept each others different views without taking it to extremes. These debates between men of different world views are examples for how we should live as a people on the same planet. Its not so much about which argument is right or wrong so much. But they are trying to show us the right way.
Not at all. Stating an aspect of a character isn't the same as admitting the character exists. That's the same as saying that Voldemort is evil so Voldemort must exists because of it. It makes no sense.
@@thebigone3437 buddy i have never been angry at any Greek Gods why because i know they are fake nor do i try to say they dont exist for the same reason i have zero emotion talking about them unlike the radical atheist being hell bent on proving something dosnt exist ha ha very laughable so keep getting upset about something you dont think exist
Many are call but few are chosen...... so sad....it makes me want to cry. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Jesus said I am way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14: 6 that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Roman 10:9 Jesus said I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. John 11:25 I am telling you the truth.
I’ve always found it quite interesting that such a strong, dynamic speaker teaching about the beginning of life and about God draws so many ‘atheists’ to watch their talks. At the end they always interject with us common, everyday people that believe and agree with the Bible to try and drag us in to some kind of argument or heated discussion about proving that God exists. If they truly disagree, so adamantly, why then do the waste their time fishing for a fight? Why do the seem to watch every single one of these videos and then try to anger people the reply with the same rhetoric each and every time? To me, it appears to be, a lonely life as th where one must watch something they have no belief in and then stick around to try and draw out a fight. I don’t mean a physical altercation either, I mean a supposed heated scientific discussion about proving God is real. So are these people either angry and hunting for someone to try and beat down, or are they truly inquisitive and hunting for the truth as what they believe doesn’t fulfill them? It makes no sense that they troll videos just to try and scientifically disprove something they don’t believe in, that would just be a huge waste of time and provides no meaning, so what’s their real reason?
I would just tell them to attend one of the conferences and ask those types of questions to the presenters, using these same types of arguments. I truly believe they will either truly think about it or reject and just call it 'nonsense.' Once they call it nonsense, we have won. They then have no more 'facts' to back their arguments.
@@andrewunthank3521 Why does he talk about the atheists burden of proof when he doesn’t even intend on trying to prove god’s existence? And he didn’t come close to showing beyond reasonable doubt that god exists. The entire presentation boils down to an argument from ignorance.
@@andrewunthank3521 Did you avoid answering Salt because you agreed with his point? Take 24:50 for example: Turek is taking a fact of our universe (that we can explain some things mathematically), and _saying for absolutely no reason (based on no evidence) that the reason it's like that is "a mind" did it._ So (1) he's making a massive unjustified leap that isn't justified by the evidence, and (2) _he isn't even leaping directly to god!_ So even his own argument wouldn't be evidence of a god even if he _could_ demonstrate a mind was behind that stuff. (And he _doesn't_ have evidence a mind was even behind it. So he doesn't even have that.)
"we believe", "we saw", "we know", "life flash experience", "trust me bro", "in my hEaRt" You know. It's not that I have any issue with the possiblity of a god. But this constant stream of intangible wordplay is just mentally exhausting. It wears on the intellectually proficient, the people who dedicate time to critical thought and question things that just sound like word salad ideology.
"Dr. Frank Turek looks at science and if it confirms or denies belief in God" Step one would be to have a clear scientific definition of god. Does anyone have one?
I know I’m late to the party but that link does not work. Is there another way I can get a free PowerPoint? I’m interested in showing my church Bible study about apologetics
Everything comes from The Ultra Powerful and Ultra Big Particle named Lord..everything..we are just some..small pieces in this Huge Unknown and Undeacribed Divine Process..Lord Have Mercy on the good souls..thank you..amin..
Ok so its a good way to frame Christianity but the problem i see here is its a circular argument- cos muslims, hindus and buddhists could ask the same question right... perhaps a better question would be if Jesus resurrection is true would you become...?
Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
This glorifies believing something without evidence. Even the Bible admits there is no evidence for the Christian message. Why in earth should anybody believe it if there's no evidence?
First and foremost, I pray that God may talk through His Living Words of Life. Eg: I am sure that when one was an infant in his mother's arms, he didn't go for a DNA test to accept her as his mom. Neither did he require to do so after growing up coz he looks like them. But this doesn't necessarily imply the lack of DNA evidence! This verse means that 'Faith is the evidence' and is enough coz otherwise even a smallest layman must require to be worldly educated in Science and other stuff to know his Father God. This doesn't mean the lack of other evidences ( refer Apologetics). There are numerous such things but that Faith outweighs them all. "Faith of our 'fathers' living still, we will be true to thee till death..." Our fathers may not be educated at all but they had the wisdom for Life and God lead them faithfully to the other shore. He will lead me also!
@@p.dhawan Hello dear brother/sister while I was leaning english, I understood faith in this way. 1: Belief or my mind is convinced by what I have seen or read 🤔 2: Trust or my will is committed to this 🤔 3: Obeisance or my behaviour is converted as a result 🤔 🕎🌏🌍🌎✝️
@@anashwarmonrajan3110 Keep ignoring what? I'm asking for evidence. You are not putting any evidence in front of me and then accusing me of ignoring something. What exactly do you think I'm ignoring?
Very good question. You are going against modern science though. At least the consensus which of course can’t be wrong. Frank has addressed this before by using science. If matter was Infinitely old, Time and space would also be. If time was infinite in the past we would never get to the present. If you have heard Frank’s arguments you would know that the creator of time space and matter since it had a beginning would have to be outside of times space in matter. That means the Bible God who informs us that He is timeless, spaceless, and without material form is the only Entity that could bring Time space and matter into existence. That in itself is evidence for the god of the Bible. God’s best one request for absolute truth
@@multicolourpen6492 you can read my reply again but the answer is there. Something outside of Time is timeless. Timeless means without time. Therefore by definition it doesn’t need or have a beginning. That means it is eternal, without beginning, which means nobody made it. Hope that helps. God‘s best on our quest for absolute truth
@@multicolourpen6492 God didn't exist for infinite time prior to creation, he existed in a timeless state where only he existed and nothing else. Reason shows that there cannot be an infinite series of causes. There must be an uncaused, first cause. For an illustration, it is impossible to count all of the negative numbers starting at negative infinity and ending at zero. Even if given infinite time, there are still infinite numbers left to count. Even if you somehow finished that task since you had already been counting an infinite time, how is it that you only finished just now? After all, you had been counting for an infinite time already, so you should have finished the count an infinite time ago. You are in essence always counting and yet always done counting, a flat contradiction. Such scenarios show how actually infinite sets and series cannot actually exist in reality. They are useful mathematical constructs, but you couldn't actually have an infinite amount of baseballs. The symmetry breaker (something that means this line of reasoning doesn't apply to something else) for future events is that future events don't actually exist. There exists POTENTIALLY infinite future events, but until they happen they aren't actually real while there HAS BEEN an infinite series of past events, if the past is in fact infinite. There will always be a finite amount of events that HAVE HAPPENED between the beginning of the universe and now, even if when NOW is could go on infinitely into the future. Thus, an infinite future does not have the same problems as an infinite past. Stephen Hawking was able to show that as we move backwards in time, spacetime itself curves in on itself more and more until eventually there is a spacetime boundary where it is infinitely curved, meaning the volume of the universe is 0. It's somewhat analogous to saying "What is north of the North Pole?" Well, nothing. If you go in any other direction there is more Earth, but there is nothing north of the North Pole. Similarly with space-time, as you go back farther into the past you hit a boundary beyond which there is literally nothing or at least nothing that can be described through Classical Mechanics. In 2003, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin developed a Theorem which proved that ANY universe, regardless of it's initial conditions, that has been on average in a state of expansion must have a spacetime boundary. This holds true even if the universe does not conform to the Einstein Field Equations and is actually described by another system like Quantum Gravity. Since this initial condition, or the cause if you will, created (or led to the creation of) the universe a finite time ago as shown by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, it cannot be mechanistic or probabilistic cause like a natural law since it presumably also existed in a timeless state prior to the universe. If it WAS such a cause, then we should expect an infinitely old universe since the cause has always existed AND it was always capable of producing the effect. In the case of a mechanistic cause (something like Gravity), the cause always and inevitably leads to the effect as soon as the cause is present and since the cause has always existed, so too should the universe. For a probabilistic cause (something like Quantum Mechanics), not only is there no time for fluctuations to take place to change the cause from being incapable of creating the universe into being capable of doing so, but the cause has no ability to prevent such fluctuations from occurring. Since the cause has always existed we would expect the universe to have randomly fluctuated into existence an infinite time ago. Only an agent, capable of an act of the will to bring about the creation of the universe, could exist in a timeless state without the universe and then choose to bring about the universe at the moment time began.
The whole lecture is just constantly begging the question. I hope its just the fact its an audience problem and this lecture isn't for me. The mechanic and Henry Ford example isn't a proper analogy cuz we know that Henry Ford was a guy whereas the question we're trying to answer is whether God exists. I dont understand why apologists don't have stronger arguments. I wish I had time to go into each of his arguments.
When people tell me science disproves God it only tells me that they underestimate God’s magnificence. Not only that though, they underestimate Evil. Because what is science? What has science lead HUMANS to create? Medical wonders and atomic bombs. “And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.” Revelation 13:13
Is this verse about the beast? What I've heard is that it could be a person. It could. At least it does not live longer than a human. I could be wrong though, did not read these verses myself in my bible. Somehow it could fit with just that verse and rumors about the mark, though. Even though I've heard it gets revealed mid term, but idk when the beast arises (before or beginning tribulation)🤔
@@rydrakeesperanza5370 “But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” Revelation 19:20-21
@@joshuacooper9946 thanks. You know, today I've read something (we have eschatology at school) about it in judaism and I've found something with animals that are the kingdoms or something. It would fit if the beast rather is a kingdom of leader of said kingdom. But I don't know
@@rydrakeesperanza5370 Yes, the beasts do represent Kingdoms and kings. I’d suggest going to Daniel 7, it includes Daniel’s dream and the interpretation of his dream.
@@joshuacooper9946 oh, I've read that once. It were more the horns there and the two animals. But all these wars were too complicated to get, also because it was more like "the king of the north" or something, so, I can't quite imagine that... The whole time I thought the old testament is just the past. (That the only which not has already happened is the revelation of john) But in school my teacher told us about the day if the lord, which did not already happen. And that day comes many times in the old testament. That's why I'm not sure what already happened and what not anymore....
Wonderful. Thanks for using your God-given gifts to help us understand how to strike down all arguments that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
great video It's always so encouraging to see the evidence for God & how he runs the universe. Glory to God & blessings to the cross examined team. Thanks for the great work :)
I'm Christian, if you are an Atheist, and a nice, friendly, trust to be logical, and is Willing to have your mind changed. I ask that you kindly bring up one point from the video that you don't feel is logical that us Christians would take and use as evidence. Thanks, God bless.
Challenge accepted. Frank talked about the Model T and Henry Ford as an analogy for God and the universe. He claims that in the same way that we would suspect a designer behind the Model T, so too should we suspect a designer for the universe. I think it's important that we first understand *how* we recognize design. We recognize design by comparing it to what is naturally occurring. We do not recognize design based solely on complexity, which is what this argument relies on. We know the Model T(or any other vehicle) was designed because it can be demonstrated that the designers exist. We also know the exact process by which a vehicle is created. This is not true of the Universe, which is why I find the analogy to be disingenuous. I'm not claiming that the Universe *was not* designed, I'm simply pointing out that simple analogies like these only demonstrate people's ability to create clever word games.
XoPURExLUCKoX He uses this scenario to paint a picture that if something complex exists, then something that has the intelligence to bring that into existence must exist. We can observe what spaceless-ness, matterless-ness, and perhaps even timeless-ness looks like in black holes. If black holes exist, then how is it that the universe exist? We can see what “universeless-ness” would look like, and yet we have a universe. Logic dictates that there is something outside the constraints of natural law that brought reality into existence.
XoPURExLUCKoX Watch some more of Frank’s presentations man! This video here doesn’t unpack the actual scientific evidence. This video here is more philosophical, as he premised.
I think we may be in agreement, at least partly. I would say though that all of the things you listed still fall under the umbrella of contrasting naturally and non-naturally occurring elements. For example we know steel and plastic are not naturally occurring, but granite and wood are naturally occurring. We of course can look at how it's put together, but again we are comparing natural vs. non-natural. My main point though is that one of the criteria that we "generally" don't use is complexity. Simple objects can still be man-made, while complex things can and do occur naturally. The reason we know pocket watches, cars and shovels are intelligently designed has nothing to do with their complexity. It comes down to the knowledge and experience we have gained throughout our lives.
I made it 27 minutes. I was extremely curious to what the evidence was, but all I heard were arguments against science and a ton of claims. If you have evidence then why even bother the opposing sides claims? Did I miss something?
Well he mentioned the biblical passage that said to not only give reason for God but to knock down opposing arguments. So maybe that answer your question.
Frank doesn’t know the context of his argument.. 2 Corinthians was written to the church not atheist teachers not unbelievers… I wonder how many Christian’s watching this even know that bit of information.
XoPURExLUCKoX . Oh the irony. The fact that we received a message from you is evidence for your existence. Yet the 3.1 billion nucleotides in precise order to create YOU came together at random and DOESN'T prove a designer?? You wrote less than 50 words. God wrote 1000 sets of encyclopedias in precise order. I think you don't exist yet.
@@BFizzi719 Nope. Sorry, but that's not evidence that YOU exist. It's only evidence that someone or something responded. An electronic response could be computer generated, from a hacker, or from someone posing as you. Evidence rejected. Try again.
I am not a troll or someone looking to start an argument, but I was wondering if someone could help me understand these bible verses: 1) (Deuteronomy 22:28--29 NAB) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. 2) (Deuteronomy 20:10--14) As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. 3 ) (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB) Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’ 4) (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. I also want to know why there are multiple versions of the bible out there? If God/Jesus wanted us to learn from him, then why is it so difficult to understand the bible? I sincerely want to understand it and believe.
fantastic point ..... they ( atheist ) act like you either believe science or God as if you can't have both .... if we reject evolution it is because we not only think it goes against the bible but science also ... both things being based or at least supposed to be based in reality ....... if we study the world around us and use science we are getting closer to God not further from God.
One person went as far as saying it's a shane that some scientists are christians and another even further, that person thought that we think science (I mean e.g. northern polar lights or other beautiful occurrences here) is magic and that it's blasphemous to explain the researched science behind it.... These seem to think you just can scope God under a microscope so because no one did, he's not real or something
15 minutes in....no evidence presented. Only an argument that evidence is unimportant and can be interpreted any way you want. Both false claims, of course.
If the only foundation was "assumptions" then I couldn't tell you about the hundreds of scientific papers (which record _observations of reality,_ not assumptions) in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia. Those are only a small bit of the total evidence proving evolution. But why do you think you even distracted to this topic? Personally I think it's because you recognize there isn't any actual evidence of a god. (If there was do you think a video titled "evidence" would contain no evidence? Well...this vid contained no evidence of a god, only excuses.) Honestly that's why it's such a dangerous idea: desire to believe in a god is so strong that people have no problem rejecting heavily-evidenced facts in order to believe non-evidenced fiction.
@@jokermann100 that everything has a natural explanation. Your god is very god in hiding. He hides so well that now he is beyond spacetime and bigbang.
@@jokermann100 what evidence do you have for god? Nothing. All you are saying to explain something is i dont know therefore god. Argument of ignorance.
@@jokermann100 i dont think you understand science at all. Do you want me to answer ohh god moved the rocks because he has no other things to do like save life, feed people, fix global warming than to move rocks in deserts.
All creation is GOD LEVEL INTELLIGENT DESIGN! Atheists have a huge problem with seeing the difference between human intelligent design versus God-Level Design.
No my issue is with claims being made minus the evidence. Definition: No evidence means that there is not enough proof to support a claim or argument. Conclusion : The claim is baseless !
@@sly33 I could accept real, tangible, pokeable, testable, repeatable, well-documented, peer-reviewed physical evidence. Or the personal visit from a god. What evidence would you require for me to prove to you that the tooth fairy is actually real ?
@@Bugsy0333 In other words, you're talking about scientific evidence, which you can do with creation all around us, but God is a personal being, not a scientific experiment. Do you treat friends and family like a scientific prodding apparatus? I'm not looking for the tooth fairy, is that what you're looking for? Is there historical evidence for the tooth fairy?
@@sly33 In Northern Europe, a tradition of tand-fé or tooth fee was paid when a child lost their first tooth. This tradition is recorded in writings as early as the Eddas (c. 1200), which are the earliest written record of Norse and Northern European traditions. Unlike your God, I can see my family and friends and communicate with them .
Frank Turek... Your question "If Christianity is prove true, would you become a Christian?" is wrong. Why? Simple, If Christianity would be proven true, I would believe Jesus/God exsist... My sense of morality would stop me from becoming a Christian. There are to many things in the bible I disagree with.
If you believed in Jesus / God, you wouldn't feel that way. It would be like a revels tion urn your heart, and you would know the truth. You'd know who he is, and that he is holy and righteous. You'd recognise your own shortcomings, you'd feel a sense of regret for your past rebellion in your heart against him, and you'd receive his holy spirit - his love, his grace, forgiveness, mercy, and peace. He loves you even though you feel that wau right now, and his grace and love would overwhelm you to submit to his moral standard, even if you feel you can't live up to it. You're now his child and he loves you regardless. That's what it's like when you receive him through faith in your heart. God bless x.
To say there are ‘too many things you disagree with’ is somewhat ambiguous seeing as some of the Bible relates the decisions of men and some were the judgement of God. If, for instance, your issue was the idea that they brought a young girl to keep David warm because he was on his death bed then you’re not in disagreement with God you’re in disagreement with man, which we all are in some way. If you’re argument is that God says homosexuality is sinful and your modern world perception accepts it then you’re not against God you’re harbouring the incorrect perception that you sit in judgement of God, which you don’t.
@@kymmoore853 I find the ability of christians to excuse literally everything amazing. You simply say "God is good" and even when god does something I agree with then it is still good. I cant even fathom how far removed from reality you must be, in order to hold that postion. The closest thing I can see as a resemblence, is how the North Korean people worship their leader. Everything the North Korean leader does is good, per defintion. And criticisim of the north korean leader is unjust and based on ignorance. That is the exact same thing.
@@WilliamsWorldView I’m not a Christian, but I used to think like you until I realised that, if there is a God, then he sits in judgment over me and not the other way around. Take the Canaanites, for instance, they were doing some pretty deplorable stuff that involved everything from necrophilia to child sacrifice. God orders them wiped out and yet people have an issue with it because all they see is one side of the argument.
@@kymmoore853 I disagree with you. The whole "if there is a God then he sits in judgement over me" is a bit of non-argument. The story as described simply doesnt add up. God supposedly gave humans free will and the autonomy to use it. With it he forfeited all his rights to humanity, including his right to judge over humanity. I do think people see both sides of the Canaanite story, but the story again depicts God violating some logical rules. Seeing as to how his own failure as a God lead to the Canaanites doing what they supposedly did
And again no evidence. Just a secondhand car salesman talk. A constant stream of words, but no answers or evidence. Monty python would be proud to present this "nonsense machine" sketch.
@@MasterSongStudiosReal why? I don’t need to change somebody else’s beliefs I don’t have any desire or need to. I only hope that whatever people believe that it promotes love and oneness rather than segregation and judgment. I have no idea what you believe or how you practice it or if it harms others or yourself and it’s not really my business. I believe in God and Jesus but even I can see that the Bible would be hard to look at as being factual. There would be no point in me spending a bunch of time giving you 1 million reasons and examples to try to convince you when I understand how beliefs are formed and once they are there it’s pretty impossible to change. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and you believe in Christianity 100% nothing I say is going to change your mind. Nothing short of God coming down himself and telling you would change your mind.
