Frank explains to an atheist that he can't reason in atheism! 

What a ridiculous frase, to be an Atheist you don't need an ounce of faith.

Seems like using faith must be an insecure reason to believe something.

@@frankcardano4142 NAH 😂

@@fidenful sure you do... you believe in the laws of physics? How about induction? How about something came from nothing? Pssssh, silly atheists.

@@frankcardano4142 well theres reasonable faith, and there is blind faith. Did you ever fly in a plane? Did you know the pilot wasnt going to wreck? Or did you have reasonable faith that he wouldnt.

Yeah hes a great young man like myself! He asked the correct questions. Very nice 👍

@@nickjones5435 Name a point fact or argument. Or are you a 13 year old?

Amen. True atheists are humble. God-haters just pretend to be atheists.

@@nickjones5435 LOL! You'll find out. In a Hundred years from now you won't be an atheist. Why not humble yourself and open your mind? no? that is why you are damned. Humble people have open minds and find the truth.

@@Scotty-Z70 I don't "gate god." I just don't believe in any.

@@michaelsiler7732 What is "gate god"? is that in Stargate SG-1?

The atheist?

He doesn’t want the truth he clearly wants to desperately go against the truth.

Even stumbled when being asked if Christianity was true would he be a Christian..

@@daekwonrose3160 truth can be demonstrated, that's where Christianity fails

@@logicalatheist1065 can you demonstrate the big bang theory?

If you took money out of this entire equation, Frank Turek and Cross Examined would quit in a heartbeat. These aren't real Christians - they're charlatans that saw a financial opportunity through religion and seized upon it.

@@upturnedblousecollar5811 I don't think you're quite making the point that you wanted to. As with most businesses, without money they cease to function. Many travelling evangelists such as Dr. Turek rely heavily on donations that they re-invest into the ministry. Traveling thousands of miles per week to host FREE speeches is not cheap by any means. I'm not sure what money had to do with my first comment, but I wish you the best!

Unlike Frank

@@bigkahuna8823 I think you're typing drivel and presenting it as if it were fact. Like your religion, you didn't show one ounce of proof to prove your claims to be true. And we both know WHY you didn't.

To bad Christains can not do the same.When they do not kow the answer is "Well it must be God " !

me too!!! 😊

The only thing I learn is how dumb atheist arguments are because I hear ones I haven't heard before.

@@lilchristuten7568 and learn how dumb apologists arguments are

Please slow down and consider what Frank is saying carefully. There is a TON of bad reasoning in this conversation, mostly by Frank.

@@incredulouspasta3304 is there bad reasoning or your opinion that it's bad?

Do you remember how they addressed the the concept in this video of complex coincidences like going to be beach and seeing a full sentence written out? (Like 'John loves Mary's)?

@@briankelly1240 I don't recall. Honestly, it seems like they're somehow fine with some things just being explained away as just coincidences. Not sure how they would argue this one.

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I believe that part of the argument they made was the series of coincidences that led to them. Essentially starting from the moment of the Big Bang. That's the condensed summary of what I recall.

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 ask them. If you happen upon them that is.

No reason then to understand their reasoning!

True, that. The calm ones actually think it through instead of basing it off their emotions and are more likely to accept logical answers even if it goes against their original beliefs

Wow damn it! I have to admit this atheist is respectful and calm with his emotions in checking mate!

I don't bother listening to him at all. I don't do superstitious gibberish

I enjoy the superstitious gibberish

Yes

@@CaptainFantastic222 How’s that?

@@thomasb4467 By definition, you said its a computer so its a computer.

@@macmac1022 that is honestly silly

@@1Corinthians13.4_7 That's because it's a silly question... Much better question would be: Can there be an undesigned computer? And how would it become to be a computer in the first place?

Lol you must be a sound engineer

@@alexyandell. How'd you guess? 😄 It's been driving me crazy.

@@KeyofGtutorials that drove me nuts but deterred me not from what was being said 😂

Oh, I thought it was just me who hated that. I thought sound enigeers loved this sound more.

@@sherlockhomeless7138 Not one's who know what they're doing lol

How blessed are the ignorants that trust computers... Especially if they have Windows as their OS lol I agree with what you put in there. Trust is something so subjective and relative. It should not be used as an argument to find truth. What I trust isn't necessary is what others trust. Each of us have different standards when it comes to deciding who or what we trust.

@@dfurda18 Understandable.

@@dfurda18 without mind you cannot do anything, like having faith or believe in a god so if you can´t trust your mind, you can´t even trust faith so the whole argument of this man fails from it´s very core.

@@0shaade0 Your actually making his case. Frank is saying we were created by an intelligent designer who gave us minds. The atheist is saying we don’t have to be designed to be able to find truth and Frank is saying would you trust a computer that wasn’t designed? And the atheist is saying no here and admitting something needs to be designed in order to be reliable. The fact we can reason all this out with our minds and come to the conclusion God exists is more proof there is a God.

​@@sean_diddy3262Trusting a computer that was not designed would be poor judgement, as there are computers that are designed, and their designers are known, factually. The difference between that, and trusting a god as a designer, is that there is no evidence of the designer, only the imagined appearance that one might have been there. One is factual, the other mere faith.

Can you identify one _evidentiary fact_ that Frank has stated that can be _demonstrated_ to be true? Yes or no.

Then you’ve wasted your time in both areas, I guess?

@@Bomtombadi1 Why are you here wasting your time?

@@Theo_Skeptomai Can you identify one evidentiary fact that Frank has stated that can be demonstrated to be false? Yes or no

@@dallaskinard3143 Do you always avoid straightforward questions by asking irrelevant questions of your own?

Sweet destruction of an ape wonnabe :)

@@bishopheahmund3032 bro, be more respectful. Nobody can help how they were indoctrinated from birth, whether from theism or atheism.

@@gangsterg1936 ape is not a rude word for the time worshippers , they proudly claim that they are apes

“Is every star the same?” Can any star decide which way it is going or what direction it may spin?

Be a man take responsibility for yourself.

@@brianpeterson8908 We do take responsibility for ourselves, and give God the Glory :)

@@justin10292000 Lies are a penny a dozen dude, none of you take any responsibility for anything, you just lie that you do.

​@Brian Peterson we do, but not for ourselves, but for a better relationship with the Heavenly Father.

I must say I have to agree with you on that one.

Yes, good on him UNFORTUNATE THAT FRANK DOESN'T HAVE THAT QUALITY THOUGH

@@mash9809 Agree

How many times has Frank Turek given a speech about Jesus teaching _"Sell all your possessions and give to the poor."_ I'd wager the sum total to be none. (I'm more than willing to be shown evidence where this multi-millionaire has.) All of these American apologists for Christianity are really just trying to sell Jesus to make themselves rich. They don't worship Jesus, they worship the bank balance it brings from selling Jesus. Even this "CrossExamined" fraud is doing it, look at their video description. Money is their real god.

I suggest the main question he's asking himself is, "How come this guy gets away with asserting, "It's magic" but *I'm* required to provide a description of the whole of the evolutionary history of consciousness, reasoning, and the functioning of the brain?"

@@shinywarm6906 Even if it was his question, he still has no clue.

@@shinywarm6906 Even if it was his question, he still has no clue.

@@sandina2cents779 I too would have been left befuddled if I'd asked a question, and got 20 in return. Even worse, if my question isn't answered. Turek's assertions that "this computer is designed - that's why we can trust it" and that "DNA is a software programme" are patently absurd. But he gets away with it by distracting the audience and suggesting the questioner is naive because *he* can't answer questions like how does brain chemistry generate thought, how physical laws lead to language and where the genetic code "comes from". Turek has no idea himself, of course. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that his audience thinks he's "beaten" the "enemy".

@@shinywarm6906 I understand Everything Frank Turek said just fine. I don’t understand the confusion.

Man made things were absolutely designed, however the religious unscientific religious belief has absolutely no evidence

and.... a computer program has a PROGRAMMER........... that's why we trust it CLEARLY.. FRANK DOES NOT KNOW PROGRAMMERS LOL he believes we can trust computer programmers, just because a program was written by a programmer :P that's funny

Did you plaid your shirt too?

Its more a problem of what is ment by "become a christian" for me. If it means "Wopuld you believe it it were true" then yes, of course. But if it m,eans "WOuld you follow the rules and bow down to god" then absolutely not. That god is an evil sob. By my standard, by the bibles standard, and likely by your standard aswell. I dont believe because its clearly not true. I wouldn't follow because your god is evil. These are 2 separate issues and its very dishonest of Frank to try and conflate them.

@@somerandom3247 In what way is God evil? Whose moral standards are you using as a metric?

@@DrSauce If the bible is to be believed, than your god has commited atrocious evils. and continues to do so. My my standar, by the bibles standard, by most other religious books' standards, and likely by your standard aswell.

@@somerandom3247 Atrocious evils like...?

Yes!!!! Too bad there's no major apologetics majorly league over there in Europe!

Please no

Praise Jupiter.

@@harveywabbit9541 huh?

@Harvey Wabbit praise those rocks 😄

I agree completely, but the sad thing is that for every one Christian that hears this, there are thousands more who don't. The leaders in the modern church are 50 to 100 years behind the times as for how to craft a message of truth that resonates in the 21st Century.

@@chrispatterson8210 it is our job to learn from this man and do it too, that is how we have domino effect!

Do you believe atheism to be a rationally justified position?

@@Theo_Skeptomai on assuming certain axioms, yes, it can be a rational position.

​@@Theo_SkeptomaiIt's probably the only reasonable position when it comes to the supernatural. Other positions all rely on faith, or assumptions, to differing degrees. Atheism just simply says, no evidence no belief. Nothing else implied or wished for. Seems entirely reasonable.

what is logic to a pile of fizzing chemicals...

Stop searing your conscience. God exists, we could all be nonbelievers and God would still be. and you don’t even realize ur being used by evil to make urself and others stumble because your flesh isn’t satisfied by the things of the spirit. To the point where it’s shifted to “should I follow God and his law or not” to “does God exist”. I don’t say this to bash you.

@@Golfinthefamily Chemicals use logic.

@@ntkmw8058 My concern is that we have don't have reason to believe this was true. If we tried to find what is most likely to be true in the world, we'd have no reason to believe in Christianity.

@@gamefreak23788 oh really? Nice.... so, the other question is... if you are floating bag of goo that is just chemically reacting, why can you trust your conclusions?

He lives in reality unlike Frank !

@@reality1958 What ever happened to *Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding?*

@@reality1958 That's the trick of the Devil. The Bible being evil also has been exposed as manipulation lot of times, all it takes is to cherry-pick each scripture without context and parables.

@@reality1958 Butchering children was what the Canaanites were notorious for. The Hebrews demanded them to stop, but they refused, God's orders: "End their whole population from spreading the Earth, even the animals they had sex with, but spare the untouched women."

I found many contradictions in the Catholic teachings since I was 7 years old. I decided that if God exists, and God is just, I will find God regardless of accessibility to a book, places I lived, people I hung out with. I decided not to follow any religion, but I was going to stay open to what arrives into my life. Life took me to the point of finding God. First, within myself, and later in everything God has created. Some aspects match Christian faith, some don't. I've met Catholics turning into atheists and atheists into believers of God. And none of those situations contradict the God I found. Whichever path you choose to follow, keep going with it. As long as you are true to yourself, you will arrive at a place you will feel proud of. I found personal proofs that are hard to replicate in others, they were very circumstantial and if you don't live something similar, it will not help at all. And why would you believe what I say I experienced? One thing I can say, when I talked to a friend who was raised Atheist telling me that he went to the UK and practiced yoga and meditation, I told him, but you are atheist right? And he said: yes, but there was no religious background, as if he were justifying his actions. I replied, but regardless of the religious background, that path will take you out of atheism, especially to someone honest like you. A week later while having coffee, he told me that I was right, that he doesn't know details, but now he knows there's something out there, he feels ashamed to confess it, especially to his family. This was a very hard, yet gratifying transition to him. As a mathematician, he finds it hard to reach these conclusions without hard facts. But he could not deny what he experienced. My message to atheists is: God might not be what you think, you don't have to believe in God to be happy or to be close to God. You don't have to acknowledge God, or abide your life by a set of rules someone tells you describe God. Just keep your eyes open, you might see God there. And never stop questioning because sometimes our eyes deceive us. Stay true to yourself. And try to be the best version of yourself (whatever that means to you). My message to Christians-based person (Catholics, etc...). When discussing with atheists, remember they don't accept the Bible like you do. So anything you quote from it will mean nothing to them. Instead, abstract the teachings, and find the core of your beliefs, be prepared to be challenged and seek inspiration when answering. You might be surprised of what comes out of your mouth. Just keep questioning everything you see and hear, because we might be deceived easily. And stay true to yourself.

Btw I love every comment in this thread, all questions are very good and we should all try to find our own answers to them.

I could never read a book that had a misleading title of “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”. He needs to learn what an atheist is first.

I would read his book if it were free. It means Frank doesn’t get any of my money

@@giodroid27 Would I have to believe on faith? Could I own slaves? And can I rape a girl if she’s on her own in a field?

@@frankcardano4142 Good news!!! Frank DOES know what an atheist is and the title of that book is spot on.

@@kevincarter6576 No he doesn’t. Carry on talking to a brick wall.

Like she was watching a boxing match!

Apologetics is based off lying

Since when was God magic? It is completely logical to postulate, test , validate or believe in God if the evidence fits. And yes it does if you don't have a philosophical barrier applied to science and reasoning.

@@stephenking4170 what evidence? No evidence supports any of the 3000 + claims of gods.

@@stephenking4170 science has absolutely nothing to do with any religion

ironically that is exactly what the theory of evolution is.... macroevolution is unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

so.... Truth is not found with god it is found in jesus christ alone ? WOW.. CLEARLY PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU also why is your comment not "Very respectful young man, Trying to seek for answers, May he find the answers he's looking for" why did god have to be part of this ? but i suppose since you don't have a solid understanding of how the religion works, anything you say is going to be acceptable right and others have to listen to it Tell me this WHEN DO CHRISTIANS START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR WORDS ?

The trouble is that magical pixies also answer the question just as well as any god. Just replace "magical pixies did it" for all of your "god did it" answers and you will see how silly it is.

@@AnotherViewer Silly is having an emotional reaction like yours and pretending that this is a science based rejection of God.

It's not shameful to admit you don't know something. God is just as likely a possible answer as the flying spaghetti monster. You have no evidence

@@festushaggen2563 So, based on your non-answer reply you agree that magical pixies can be a valid substitute for god.

Respectfully, and I'm a Christian, you just made a "God of the gaps" argument. The problem with this is that those gaps are smaller now than they were 100 years ago. And we have every reason to believe will be smaller 100 years from today.

You can't prove God, but you can't disprove God either. A deity is just within the realm of possibility

@@JLTrj00913 so there's no reason to believe in gods then .. 😂 lol

If no one knows the truth, how can you know that no one’s knows the truth? You are making a truth claim that no one knows the truth.

If Christian’s say they know the right answer and Atheist are saying they don’t know the right answer you couldn’t know the wrong answer unless you knew the right answer. When someone says 2 + 2 is 9 you know they don’t know what they are talking about becuase you know the right answer is 2.

@@TheREbelAlliance324 because you can’t you can claim but no one knows the truth .. can you prove someone knows the truth ? No no one can so the only truth to it is no one knows the truth

Preach that

The reason we know things is grounded on the reality of God. Atheists have no basis to trust brains let alone anything else. Talking about epistemology when you can't trust your brain is empty.

@@jesusisgod2953 But how can you know that a God is real if you can't trust your brain

Why can't you trust your brain?@@tedidk8639

OOps sorry I texted the wrong person.

i could be wrong but i think it's "Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" by Frank Turek

@@joegame4576 so basically fire starter, tureks just trying to peddle his garbage books

Flying a plane is a really complicated process that requires a lot of concentration - the dog doesn't have time to think about fire hydrants. In all seriousness though, No, it's because the dog's brain is not as complex as the human brain, and so cannot operate at a high enough cognitive level to comprehend such things. The term 'immaterial aspect to his being' is something that doesn't really mean anything, though promises a lot. We know the material exists. The idea of the immaterial is something you need to demonstrate to be taken seriously.

That argument is so stupendously dumb that it depresses me that anyone ever bought it, ever.

Your wrong to say such a thing because you are not a dog or that doesufic dog so you don't know what he thinks about. An inescapable truth. Humans are always so arrogant that they think they know what animals think. It's so rediculous.

Good question. . The answer lies is what is the "self?" If the thing we perceive as "self" is just a response to the chance collection of chemicals in our skulls, then our thoughts are not independent and are just manifestations of our chemical makeup. However, if there is "something more" to the self than physical reality, then it is possible that we are not solely responding to our chemical makeup and can have thoughts that are independent of physical reality. . Example, I could ask if you freely asked your question, or if your chemical make up forced you to ask it.

@@sidwhiting665 Our subconscious mind makes decisions for us before our conscious mind is even aware of it. This has been tested. Either way, it’s not really the ‘self’ or ‘I’ making these decisions but something ‘outside’ of it, out of my conscious control-regardless of whether the thing doing the actual deciding is my ‘soul’/‘spirit’, or if it comes from the neuro-chemical matrix of my brain. We can’t ’measure’ a soul empirically. We can, however, measure brain activity. This is a problem neuroscience can investigate. What religion attempts to do, however, is to just put a band-aid on the problem as a quick solution, to make us feel better.

It doesn't. Religion is the suspention of reason. not the answer for it.

@@somerandom3247 did you watch the video?

It doesn't. It's all about feels.

it's not the answers that are important, it's the willingness to ask questions.

@@roberts5539 Why ask questions if you don't want answers?

@@justin10292000 i never said i didn't want answers, but that the questions were more important than the answers. Some answers we can not know definitively. Some answers are designed to stifle questions. They are based on an unquestionable authority. "It says in the Bible..." is not a good answer. From a question should come a testable hypothesis. Faith relies on the authority of ancient texts, not on provable data. Sure, there may well be a creator God who requires blind faith, but there is absolutely no evidence for such a being. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Why should we have an afterlife? But why should humans get an eternity with their ancestors? why not cows? Or insects? "it says in the bible..." so what?

Really? Turek is an ignorant hack. You should really educate yourself with something outside of your echo chamber.

“Dominates”?

I would have responded and if I gave you a book...Love it!!

same. Ive learn how little christianity has to offer.

One of the best around - he, Bill Craig and Whaddo You Meme are the three I credit most with breaking down my barriers to faith and letting the Spirit do His thing and bring me to the faith 😊

@@ChristopherDolbyyes! The three who all lower the epistemological bar!

@@Bomtombadi1 bahahahahahahahaaa!

@@ChristopherDolby Billy Craig smugly admitted as such

The question that the quote provokes is; if structure came out of chaos can we trust chaos? There are some outliers but generally the answer is no. So if chaos cannot be trusted then there had to something that was structured that created structure.

@@Praying_Mantis3 Well said! As only an intelligence can make another intelligence.

That's as ridiculous as what he said your eye is not a camera it performs similar functions that's all. There is no proof that god exists even the devoutest christian will tell you it's a matter of faith!

@@Praying_Mantis3 "if structure came out of chaos" There is no "chaos", technically, just different kinds of structure. "can we trust chaos" You can trust chaos to be chaos, you can trust structure to be structure, you can trust stones to be stones, you can trust humans to be humans, you can trust minds to be minds, you can trust senses to be senses. What other kind of "trust" would you expect?

@@Mannwhich "only an intelligence can make another intelligence" Is that conclusion actually based on anything? Because we can make a thing from another thing, that's demonstrable. More than that, things become other things all the time without our help, too, that's also demonstrable. Even more than that, there doesn't seem to be anything that DOESN'T change into another thing, given enough time. So why do you say that intelligence can only come from intelligence?

Let's be real - I've seen arrogance run both ways in worldview conversations. Even though I don't think I would consider Dr. Turek to be at the forefront of philosophy, I don't think the _real_ arrogance is coming from guys like him. He is a seasoned scholar who has had a lot of practice working through the fundamental, generalized questions that he gets asked over and over again in public. There isn't a question that he is being asked in these Q&A sessions that he hasn't already wrestled with himself dozens (if not hundreds) of times from different perspectives in order to answer the more nuanced and contextual questions that run even deeper. There are plenty of questions that these men and women would admit they can't directly answer - if you asked the question the right way with the right pretext. Otherwise, they are general questions that they are not particularly challenged to answer. You would see the same air of confidence from an atheist philosopher who has defended his ideas for years and I don't think it's fair to suggest that there's anything specially arrogant about that. The demonstrable arrogance that I see is routinely from those who _profess_ to understand but do not (and, more to the point - _will_ not). In short - laypeople trying to be apologists. Believers and non-believers alike, unfortunately.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that laypeople (like me) cannot have conversations - they just need to be willing to admit when they've reached the limit of their understanding. Usually, it's right around the same time that you've felt yourself dig your heels in. ;)

We do, but the only solution to that is to find that answer. If only most Atheist like him can do that more often.

Because people want there to be purpose to their lives. A lot of people simply need to believe that there is someone out there looking out for them

I can accept that.@@RichardsGaySon

I encourage you to look into the evidence for Jesus Christ for your answer

macroevolution cannot be empirically verified. And piles of fizzing chemicals can't be trusted either on their own merit.

@@Golfinthefamily But a sky daddy can be? Ok, do it.

@@Golfinthefamily Macroevolution is change at or above the specie level. We have verified speciation events before. You don't seem to understand that our minds are no different than your idea of a disembodied mind if it is a product of our brain. It still functions practically the same.

@@akoskormendi9711 You defined macroevolution... but nothing has changed kind observationally. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite...after 30 years ecoli was still ecoli.... after generations and generations...fruit flies were still fruit flies... macroevolution is a false conflation. You literally cannot prove it to be true. You have a faith position.

@@littlebitofhope1489 I don't believe that a pond of sludge got struck by lightning and became intelligent beings who could go to space... Your caricature of God is quite telling. You should really read some better atheists at least.

God by definition is the uncaused, uncreated First Cause/Creator. Noone created God.

@@justin10292000 yes which isn't possible isn't it? You can't say one thing and then not be consistent.

The nature of spirit is eternal, so time is irrelevant. Only temporal creation has a set beginning and end, stars, worlds, people, etc.. Essentially, no intelligence formed in and of its own making. And only an intelligence can form or propagate more intelligences. So some sentient being had to have always existed. If this wasn't the case, would there have been any creation at all?

@@Mannwhich where is the proof my dude? Just saying this does not make it true. You have some big claims but nothing to back it up with.

@@dankfarrik8376 Just like there is no proof for you to say what isn't possible either, RIGHT? So you tell me then, what came first... chicken or egg?

I disagree. I hold no faith based beliefs

No not at all.

If agnostics are admitting they don’t know, why are they so committed and passionate about dissuading others?

But we can know a lot about God. There is evidence, but many disregard it

And that's why I'm an agnostic.

What are they pray tell?@@trustthetruth2779

The Designer is self created.

@@Thyalwaysseek Hmmm... not sure how that works. Can one really create itself?

@@Thyalwaysseek do you really believe that statement as you wrote it? My understanding is that God has simply always been. The 'law of conservation energy' says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy just is, like God.

@@knowone11111 Yes the Creator thought itself into existence, the Universe is mental, held in the Mind of the The All.

@@knowone11111 Mind is not energy.

Doesn't answer the question, if thought is the byproduct of unintelligent forces then how can you trust them? Let alone how can reason and logic come about from said forces.

@@openmindedskeptic9014 You trust them, because is all you got; and the wonderful thing is that works, it tooks us to the moon and back, didn't it? The religious fanatics, like this guy Turek, want to tell you that there has to be something else, because they want to smugle in their God. The human mind will, thousands of years in the future, take humanity to the stars, their technology will be like magic, to less develop beings they will look like Gods, but they will be only our evolved descendants, his Jesus story will, if anyone remember it, be even more ridiculous and provincial than today.

@@fidenfulwell sure I don't believe in this "something else" cause I'm an atheist, however I'm not a materialist since i believe the mind is independent of the body

@@openmindedskeptic9014 Would you care to explain that?

Actually no that’s no flaw , bc what he dipicted is what The Gospels describe as GOD . No other religion

@@tkaygamehead4062 but there's no reason to believe the Christian dogmas are true.

@@tkaygamehead4062 how he do that?

@@onsenguy the apostles and the early Christian sure found good reasons to

@@coreykirby1632 when the Hindu holy book was written, and accounts of the Greek Gods of Olympus, people had good reason to believe that too. Now we know it's all myth and man-made.

the theory of evolution (macroevolution) is the greatest creation myth known to man.

@@Golfinthefamily Go and study it an understand before you talk about it.

@@T.One_way Dude, I have studied it. You haven't studied the historicity of Jesus. You made that clear. You then audaciously claim that Jesus is NOT Lord-- without evidence at all to the contrary. You have put forth no good evidence for your claim other than you think resurrection is a fantastic claim and hard to believe (which I would agree). So... it is a miracle for a reason... people don't go to death for something they KNOW is a lie. -- I think your projection is telling. It seems you have a hardened heart and want to come off as astute or thoughtful but really you aren't open to looking or searching it out.

@@Golfinthefamily Bro when did I say all of this why straw man me. And also I was a Christian before becoming an atheist after seeing how the new testament forces itself into the old testament.

@@T.One_way whoops on regards to the red herrings...I'm commenting back on several threads... seriously...sorry for that. I have studied evolution... it says that the main creating force is random mutation via natural selection... genetic variation leads to changes in traits with a vast majority of them being detrimental or degrading. Darwinists believe that somehow through all of these cosmic accidents...somehow we got a genetic code with millions of character, we got the eye, etc... The Cambrian explosion demonstrates there isn't enough time specific complexity shows us there is no gradual process to the complexity we see Observation and testing has always demonstrated an organism remaining the same kind of organism (ecoli remains ecoli, fruit flies remain fruit flies... etc.) Macroevolution is an unsubstantiated conflation of genetic change. It cannot be proven. Christianity is true. Jesus rose from the dead. I'd be curious to know how you feel like the New Testament forces itself into the New Testament.. that is quite a claim that I'd like to have evidence for. Grace and peace to you.

The universe suddenly banged into existence out of absolutely nothing >>> THAT is magic: absurd, nonsensical, anti-scientific magical nonsense.

​@@justin10292000 Sure that sounds magical but it's only a theory and we really don't know for sure. Would Frank agree that the bible is a theory on how we got here? I don't think he would.

​@@justin10292000 Nobody in science believes the universe "banged into existence out of nothing" But it's exactly what the bible says god did. Create the world out of nothing by just speaking it into existence.

@@oscargr_ The Big Bang theory

@@JLTrj00913 The Big Bang theory doesn't say the universe banged out of nothing.

@@benjasabukid2321 Evidence?

@@akoskormendi9711 Here is your answer, it’s silly to say the solar system all the way down to molecules and DNA happened by chance, be honest: Me: so you’re an atheist? Atheist: yes Me: why don’t you believe in God? Atheist: Because I don’t believe in fairy tales Me: So who created the universe? Atheist: it came from nothing Me : 🤣😂

@@jdominguez777 I don't say or believe it came from nothing. So nice strawman you got there

@@benjasabukid2321 A Christian's ability to try do dictate what I believe never ceases to amaze me. Hit me up when you are actually ready for a honest conversation

@@benjasabukid2321 Already doing that. I don't think you understand how ironic it is that you talk about me having an ego while thinking that you know me better than me. If you think I deny God because it would be a big inconvinience in my life you are sorely mistaken. You don't deny Allah because you want women to not be covered up head to toe, do you? Well, I don't deny God either because anything it would entail. The evidence is not only lacking, for a few versions, there is evidence against it.

Ooof the copium and strawman of this comment is funny.

@@andresdanielem Turek stands on stage and lies all the time, typical apologetics... What's the fallacy?

@@logicalatheist1065 You again with the same strawmans?

@@andresdanielem do you even know what a strawman is?

@@logicalatheist1065 Yeap

Exactly

"Yeah"; I'd recommend MORE William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross, and LESS Kent Hovind and Bill Nye.....

@@johnharrison6745 I'd recommend less WLC and more actual science. "At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown" That will be because of the preponderance of evidence supporting the age of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy as well as the likes of genetics to support evolutionary theory. You know who does have a hard time saying "I don't know"? Apologists like Frank Turek. He pretends to know. His career depends on pretending he does know.

@@paulcooper1223 In spite of the fact that your post was so poorly written that it was almost incoherent, I'm pretty sure that I DID get the gist of it. 😏 "I'd recommend more real science": Sweet 'Em's, I've probably FORGOTTEN more about science than YOU'LL EVER know. The guy who "mentored" me out of my own real, actual atheism [as opposed-to the "atheism" of Dawkins fan-club types] holds a doctorate in applied-physics from Stanford; and, his wife holds a doctorate in astrophysics from Rice. Both have had *STELLAR* careers; both are the kind of scientist that the VAST majority of other scientists would give their right-arm AND left-leg to be. And, they're both CONVINCED, DEDICATED Christians. [so you can just "ROUND-FILE" your POSTURING and POSING regarding "science" when it comes-to me; you might as well be fighting a tank with a stick 😏] "less W.L.C.": You say that because he positively HUMILIATES your "champions". 🤪 "age of the Earth": Did I strike you as being a Young Earth creationist? I have as much contempt for that silliness as anyone. Young Earth creationism and anti-theism/New-Atheism are just the obverse and reverse of the same COUNTERFEIT coin. 😉 "evolutionary theory": I'm happy to tell you or anyone else that it's essentially indisputable that biological-life has existed on this planet for billions of years [what's the best-estimate now; 3.7 billion years?], and, that it's been changing a lot during that time. 🤷 "admitting that it's false or unknown": It would, indeed, be improper to admit that it's false, because it hasn't been demonstrated to be false; but, unknown? There's A LOT of circumstantial evidence for biological-life having been going-through 'evolution' through various forms of mutation and selection, since it first came-to-be on this planet; but, the fact is, it wasn't observed and recorded over all of those 'eons', and, it hasn't been tested, repeated, verified, and reproduced in the lab; so, it wouldn't be so improper to say that it's unknown. [because that's what real, actual science is 😉] Your calumnies about "Frank": He makes you people look like the damaged pseudo-intellectuals that you are, all the time; and, you're backside-burned about it. 🤪

@@johnharrison6745 There was nothing incoherent about my reply. It says a lot when you have to resort to petty insults. The old "I used to be an atheist" routine doesn't impress me. How did science make you believe in a god? Where is any god mentioned in science? They're dedicated Christians and scientists. What's your point? Frank Turek isn't a scientist. He also denies science like the theory of evolution. Do you also deny evolutionary theory? Is that the part of science you forgot? Apart from making you look arrogant, I'm not sure why you'd claim to have forgotten more about science than what I know when you don't know what I know about science... WLC is also not a scientist but loves to opine on subjects he knows nothing about. Which of my "champions" does he humiliate? He didn't humiliate Sean Carroll who had to school him on theoretical physics and cosmology. WLC has made a few comments as of late which has made him a laughing stock on some skeptic RU-vid channels, particularly the statement about how he would still believe even if there was evidence which contradicts his belief because of his personal witness of the Holy spirit while dismissing the personal experiences of other theists who don't share his beliefs. A nice example of special pleading there. Then there's also the time he said Christians should be lowering their standards of evidence rather than raising them, and how if there was just a one-in-a-million chance it was sufficient for him to believe. He's just another apologist who preaches to the choir and his arguments are merely designed to convince him his belief is correct. Your arguments are no better than that of a young earth creationist. No such thing as "new atheism" when atheism is just a non-belief in a god. Comparing it to young earth creationism is a false equivalence. You don't have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate. We don't reproduce black holes in a lab. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. Science is about producing accurate models of reality with predictive power. In regards to evolutionary theory, it works in harmony with genetics which has gathered a preponderance of evidence to support it, from examining Chromosome number 2 in chimps and humans to conclude we share a common ancestor with them and the other great apes along with the presence of ERVs in the same places in chimps and humans to further support common ancestry. That and the fossil record, geology, palaeontology, astronomy... Is this also the science you forgot? Frank isn't taken seriously by anyone but his fanboys who parrot his arguments and end up looking foolish. A science denying apologist. Probably your hero.

@@paulcooper1223 Your initial post was QUITE incoherent; it WAS poorly written. I didn't employ the 'I used-to-be an atheist routine'; I gave you a LITTLE HINT about how much I know. I didn't say that science MADE me believe-in god; what I IMPLIED was that a couple of the creme' "day" la creme' of scientists think that you and yours are "we Todd's". 🤪 I've NEVER heard Dr. T 'deny the theory of evolution'; and, I couldn't care less either way about his positions/beliefs regarding it. I don't deny "evolutionary theory". In fact, I regard it as being one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence. The probability that you know no more about science than the typical anti-theist/New-Atheist whom I've chatted-with [ *LOTS* ] is VERY HIGH. 99.9999% of the time, the "atheist" I'm talking-with is some pretentious, pompous, posing little smart-person-wannabe, who thinks that he's well-informed about biology, cosmology/cosmogony, and theoretical/quantum physics, because he's spent an inordinate amount of time 'rubbing one out' while watching Nat. Geo., Discovery, Professor Dave Explains, Physics Girl, Dawkins/Sam-Harris/Lawrence-Crass, etc. 'Which of your "champions" did W.L.C. humiliate?' TAKE YOUR PICK. 'Sean Carroll'? Did you ever watch the FOLLOW-UP videos on that? Gimme break..... Seeing-as I have UTTER CONTEMPT for the so-called "skeptics" on RU-vid, their laughter is of about as much consequence to me as the noise mosquitoes' wings. 🤪 Yeah; I know Dr. Craig 'recommended' persistence in belief-in-Christ in-the-face-of 'evidence that contradicted it'. WHAT ABOUT IT? Yeah; I heard-about Dr. Craig saying what he said about 'standards of evidence'. WHY SHOULD 'Christians raise their standards of evidence'? No; Dr. Craig is, as Dr. Sam Harris said, 'the one apologist who puts the fear-of-god into his [Sam's] colleagues'. I haven't made any arguments; I've just stated relevant facts. No; the assertion that 'atheism is just a lack of belief in god' is a LIE that was pushed by Antony Flew and some of his contemporaries/colleagues back in the Day, to make atheists seem more harmless and innocuous than they actually are. The reality is, atheism is the position that deity/divinity probably doesn't exist; and, anti-theism/New-Atheism is a bunch of damaged misfits who engage-in a constant "war" of baloney-propaganda and frivolous litigation against every vestige/reminder of Christianity/belief-in-god. I didn't say that 'you have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate'; I said that for something to be really, actually scientifically-proven, it has to testable, repeatable, reproducible, and verifiable.That's what separates real, actual science from disciplines that just employ some of the methods/aspects/products of real, actual science... science-RELATED disciplines like "geology, paleontology, and astronomy". No; what "science is about" is investigation of physical reality through the use of the most accurate and reliable methods, rules, and tools available. Yes; humans share *A LOT* of genetic material with 'the other great apes'. And,the science-RELATED disciplines that you listed CAN be APPEALED-TO to support common ancestry there. Now, PROVE (through a process that's testable, repeatable/reproducible, verifiable, and that produces HARD results [i.e., REAL ,ACTUAL SCIENCE]) that "evolution did it". [go on; I "promise", I'll wait 😉] Dr. T is taken-seriously enough that the comment-section under his videos, and his campus events, are always FULL-of anti-theists/New-Atheists, absolutely FOAMING and FLAILING (and FAILING utterly) to "defeat" him. 😉 Now; got any more fistfuls of you-know-what to fling-at me, "Science" Man? 🤪

God is eternal some guy

Do you have any evidence for anything other than the physical components of us?

@@somerandom3247 do I have evidence for the non physical, do you mean? Sure, I’ll just type up a thesis for you. But in brief, I find it ridiculous to argue to the obvious. You’re reading right now. Words are a concept. They have physical manifestations that communicate them, but the word “ethereal” has a meaning more than ink on paper or sound waves, and to suggest otherwise is juvenile. You also have images in your head right now, by the way. I don’t care if there are mechanical reasons those images come into being; the images themselves are non-physical. You experience the non-physical all the time. You talk of justice, a concept which cannot possibly be physical in nature. It’s a concept of fairness, an argument for what is fair. Please describe for me what is physical about fairness. Use the metaphor of scales all you want, an argument for why a fine of $1000 for speeding is fair has nothing to do with physicality. Arguments themselves are non-physical; please describe what is physical about the gambler’s fallacy, or A->B, A; :. B I don’t argue towards things that are self-evident. If you think none of these examples exist, you sound as pleasant as a nihilist. I also take the existentialist view on nihilism; you don’t defeat a nihilist by arguing with them, and it’s self-defeating to try. Nihilists don’t buy what they’re selling, why should you? And even if the nihilist is “correct,” you can argue towards meaning assuming the nihilist arguments are correct. So yeah. Suggesting only the physical exists is like being a psychologist who denies the existence of human rationality, i.e. a pure behaviorist. Behaviorism has value, but it’s barely half the picture, because it ignores that people can make choices contrary to pure behaviorism, because we have brains/minds/souls. Brains alone counter behaviorism, though, you don’t even need to argue towards the existence of the mind to show how narrow the view of a pure behaviorist is.

@@cavanaughh1490 All of these examples are completely psysical. They are either decriptions that we give to our psysical reality, or they are the product of our minds, which are completely physical. You dont argue for the non psysical because you cant. It has nothing to do with it being obvious, or self evident. its becaue you have no argument. I apoligise that my question was not more clear. you claim that there is a part of us that is not material. a soul if you will. Do you have evidence for the existence of this supposed soul?

are you skeptical of your skepticism?

@@Golfinthefamily I'm not sure if I understand the question but I generally think that most "knowledge" is provisional. I try to always leave open the possibility that more might be revealed about most subjects. Does that answer your question?

@@drumrnva Have you studied how complex DNA is? How about the immune system? How deep the solar system is? But that all happened by chance, right? Let’s be real sir

@@jdominguez777 I don't know if anything happened "by chance", and I never said that. I have no reason to think "by chance" and the Christian god are the only two possible explanations. Yes, DNA is complex. Life on earth apparently started with very simple forms.