So nice to hear a debate about this, free of the straw-man and schoolyard stuff that so many atheists usually bring to the table. Refreshing, and I speak as an agnostic. Special thanks to our host too for his skills at moderation.
IMO it makes a huge difference. We are emotional beings as well as intellectual ones at a fundamental level; whether, or not, we like or accept it. We cannot fully orientate ourselves in the world / reality without making sense of it emotionally in various ways. Deficiencies here are generally described medically and can be very painful for people.
Wow, just the other day, I was listening to Justin's book (enjoying it too, by the way :) ), in which he mentioned this encounter, and was disappoined in finding it laid too far in the past and wasn't to be found on this channel. Now I feel like a kid on Christmas morning :D Thank you so much for digging this up and uploading it here!
If The Trinity is true, which I believe wholeheartedly to be true, exists--- who created the universe and everything within it by thought or command, then Jesus Christ Almighty God becoming a man through a virgin birth is tinker toys. In short, yes. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
@@teabag718 Although you are not being serious, your question reminds me of the current situation in the world today where some people are so focused on the physical appearance of Jesus Christ Almighty God rather than focus on the fact that God became a human being at all. Mankind, it seems, is too stuck on the creation rather than the Creator, and on the meaningless instead of the meaningful. The irony of it all? If you opened up The Bible yourself you wouldn't need to ask the question of Jesus Christ Almighty God's age before His Perfect Sacrifice and resurrection and ascension. The answers are there if people only bothered to look. That being said Jesus Christ Almighty God was 33 years old when He was crucified and resurrected and ascended into heaven. His earthly ministry was 3 years. He was a Jew, and was the prophesied Jewish Messiah and Messiah of the entire human race. Nobody is certain what He looked like, but his genealogy through His mother was diverse so make of that whatever you want, but that is not the point to focus on but rather the question, "Why did God become a man in the first place, and why did God allow Himself to be crucified, and why did God resurrect from the dead?" Again, Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
Okay let's see this. Emotional satisfaction is overrated, a thirst trap and is more often a region of God's control but the devil decieves us into thinking we can attain it; but we end up destroying ourselves and others, which just makes him laugh gleefully at human folly. The Bible commands us to Gain control over ourselves and stand gaurd our hearts with total sobreity and diligence. It must not make emotional sense at the moment because what we're protecting is of eternal value... It'll be interesting to see what the title of this video means and see if the insights shared are admissible...
Christianity certainly makes more emotional, mental, and logical sense than atheism, materialism, naturalism. IF (keyword) atheism, and all that entails with that, were true blind pitiless indifference ought to be the mindset of human beings driven strictly by blind goalless mindless emotionless deaf senseless random processes. Words like, "good," "evil," "love," "hate," etc--- basically the entire human language--- have no meaning, are illusory, etc. We ought to expect a world where nothing makes sense, truth can never be obtained or achieved because we wouldn't be capable of recognizing it, and you could never make any conclusion because whether rightly or wrongly that conclusion it means absolutely nothing BECAUSE it's "sound and fury signifying nothing." I know of no atheist who genuinely believes that. I know of no atheist who walks around doing whatever the hell they want to. I do, however, see a lot of atheist do a lot of moral and ethical grandstanding--- despite the fact they claim to be relativists--- and make absolute truth claims, all the while telling everybody willing to listen that there are no absolutes. Atheism, at bottom, is not just intellectually dishonest it is intellectually incoherent because it undermines all reason and logic, as well as humanity itself. We ourselves are the living proof that the atheist view of reality is a falsehood, because no atheist truly lives like a genuine subjectivist. They draw lines, they cry out at injustice, etc--- which is an automatic dismissal of their own atheism. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊
HomicideHenry Just like in the wizard of oz, your strawman of atheism is lacking a brain. It is in the end no better than an atheist treating every Christian as though they were a Bible literalist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth believing moron just because a tiny fraction of them actually are. It's a knowingly deceitful generalisation. Ironic that you accuse atheists of grandstanding when you're here doing exactly the same thing, only worse because you assert that access to the arenas of moral insight and fundamental understanding of language and reality comes in the form of adherence to a cult of human sacrifice that has never been able to substantiate its claims. Just because a person chooses not to make the foolish assertion that they know the ultimate nature of reality and the mind of its creator doesn't preclude them from appreciating the necessity of moral virtue and ethical action in the pursuit of a meaningful life. How many old books and religious traditions must history contain before the realisation comes that these are simply stories we tell ourselves to hone our moral intuition, which is evolutionarily ingrained..they're nothing more.
@@polarisnorth4875 Ironically it's not just me saying so but ATHEISTS like John Gray, Thomas Nagel, Jurgen Habermas and others who are intellectually honest enough to admit that flaws of atheism via Darwinist views. I recommend to you Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos" and Gray's "Seven Kinds of Atheism", for starters. However here's a taste: "“But if the mental is not itself merely physical, it cannot be fully explained by physical science. Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Nagel) “Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth-and so be free. But if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." (Gray) Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
@@sierrabianca The entire sum of your diatribe was in the last sentence, "evolutionarily engrained," so I will just focus on that specific part. Tell me, how does the Darwinian mechanism "sift" through what is beneficial or detrimental, useful or useless if by definition the mechanism is blind, deaf, goalless, mindless, emotionless, indifferent, and random not having any rhyme or reason for what it does? How can something be engrained within, if the system cannot differentiate between what's best to keep and what's best not to keep? 🤔 If anything the idea of human beings having morals, ethics, love, justice, etc built within makes more fundamental sense of us being programmed to be so, just as The Bible says (ie, "Let Us make man in Our Own Image") which the thought not lost on the atheist philosopher and author George Bernard Shaw when he proclaimed it seemed as if we were evolving towards The Trinity, because created things mirror their Creator. As the atheist John Gray said: ""Darwinist thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are militant opponents of Christianity. Yet their atheism and humanism are versions of Christian concepts. As a defender of Darwinism, Dawkins is committed to the view that humans are like other animal species in being ‘gene machines’ ruled by the laws of natural selection. He asserts nevertheless that humans, uniquely, can defy these natural laws: ‘We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.’ In affirming human uniqueness in this way, Dawkins relies on a Christian world-view." Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
@@HomicideHenry "How can something be engrained within, if the system cannot differentiate between what's best to keep and what's best not to keep?" In this case, what is "best to keep" is simply that which confers a survival advantage in any given niche. As long as a particular behaviour or adaptation serves to benefit the reproductive capacity of any organism, it is by default, without any guiding hand or oversight, carried along in the genetic lineage by mere virtue that any organism which carries it has a greater chance to reproduce and pass it on. And so our proclivities for moral and ethical behaviour trace directly from our ancestry as social mammals. Sociality confers immense survival advantage to a species that is otherwise physically vulnerable, and sociality requires empathy, cooperation and in a phrase 'moral intuition' to function. It's a function of utility and survival tactics on a genetic level, not some universal programming from a cosmic mind. It's incredible how many theists have little more than a surface level awareness of the terms and processes of evolutionary theory and yet from this position of ignorance see fit to assert that evolution can't work to produce X, therefore Jesus is God. As for your Dawkins says this, Gray says that paragraphs, it's of little consequence. It seems to be a false conflation of terms on the part of Gray anyway. Dawkins is using the term 'uniqueness of humans' in the context of our conscious intelligence and how it allows us to work against 'gene programming'. The Christian idea of human uniqueness has more to do with being a 'special creation' worthy of respect, gene expression and innate intelligence don't enter into it. In any case, I'm not here arguing that Christianity as a cultural monolith hasn't generated good ideas or has no value, but if you're trying to argue that because it has some good ideas within its frame which are of social utility and worth preserving, that therefore all of its supernatural claims must also by default be true is simply ridiculous. Most, if not all religions have within them ideas which allow the society in which they exist to thrive, that's how they persist through time. The fact that religions in educated countries are now waning is largely because better naturalistic explanations have been found for many of the claims they once built themselves upon, our moral intuition included, so I'm afraid your assumption that "the idea of human beings having morals, ethics, love, justice, etc built within makes more fundamental sense of us being programmed to be so, just as The Bible says" is out of step with current knowledge.
@@sierrabianca The thing you dismiss or minimize, is no nonetheless one point of many that shows evolution is lacking to answer the questions needing answered. You refer to the mechanism being able to differentiate what is "best" in any given situation to perpetrate survival--- however, the point still stands that a blind, indifferent, mindless, goalless, etc process simply cannot differentiate between what's beneficial and what's detrimental. The mere fact that you say that the mechanism essentially remembers what is beneficial or detrimental, is indicative of there being an algorithm of sorts to "sift", which is the exact opposite of what evolution does or how it functions. What you are ascribing to evolution actually goes beyond the power of the evolutionary process--- and in fact is an argument for THEISTIC EVOLUTION rather than naturalism. Furthermore, how can the mindless become mindful? You bring up procreation being the sole purpose of existence--- however, you cannot explain why matter driven by pitiless indifference (ie, physics and chemistry) would even want to procreate in the first place, or even understand what procreation even is--- unless it already had a goal preprogrammed to inherently know what to do beforehand, or, it had a mechanism within it to "sift" and "remember", which is again indicative of a theistic evolution than random happenstance with no rhyme or reason or understanding for what it is even doing in the first place. Atheists take things for granted without realizing the ramifications of the very things they insist are true--- they assume that it can do what it does, but under closer inspection it's effectively powerless UNLESS you "monkey around" (pardon the pun) with the mechanism. I'm reminded of the mathematical professor John Conway, most famous for his Game of Life algorithm, in which it seems at random auto cellular figures "live" and "die", and even Hawking acted as if this was proof of concept of randomness being capable of creating complex things--- however, it's a disregard of the fact that without the mind of Conway behind the algorithm there wouldn't be the cellular automata at all. This is why I will tell atheists that even IF evolution worked exactly as said--- even by you--- it's no argument at all against The Bible or The Trinity of Father Jehovah, Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit All Three in One and One and the Same Who Are the One and Only True Living God BECAUSE designers make random processes all the time--- the atmospheric clock, for example, is arguably the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine, and it operates off the random pressure changes outside the machine. It runs blind, automatic, goalless, mindless, emotionless, etc--- but it is still a product of design by a designer. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
