@@seans5289 I'm not sure how to respond to that. Wyatt described Faith as a synonym for Confidence, which is a new definition for me. "Did it require confidence there was no God to become an atheist?". No. I describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't believe any Gods exist, but I don't claim to know that with 100% certainty. New evidence could always change my position.
In the mid '80's I stumbled upon the story of the 17 points of the true church. It was fascinating to me at the time as I had been attending other churches and reading humanist and atheist teachings and followed the 17 points. As a basis, one has to accept the Bible as a true record of the ancient Hebrews, including Jesus and his disciples and Jesus' organization of his church. From there, you look at the organization of Christ's church and it becomes pretty obvious what Christ's church is. After reading and examining and receiving confirmation of the Book of Mormon, the whole picture fit, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's true church with humans that make mistakes at times but the gospel and doctrine are true.
I enjoyed this talk. I’ve constantly been comparing the book of Mormon to the Holy Bible, and praying about it. I’ve yet to find contradictions. I keep finding that the Bible supports the writings of the Book of Mormon. God’s Word is amazing.
Having been a professional investigator of churches I can relate. I knew the LDS was the right one for me the moment I attended the first sacrament meeting. It was the basement of a government building. The branch had been remodeled to resemble a ward building. No baptismal font, no cultural hall or gym. But it felt like the true church I was supposed to be in. And the Spirit was so strong in sacrament meetings even though we only had 40 regulars.
It’s like saying the chances that my parents and all my grandparents ended up together are so small that I can only conclude that someone set them up. The cool thing about nature is that it doesn’t have to be forced to be beautiful.
Awesome, totally agree ... as an adult convert 28+ years ago I went through a similar process, undoubtedly not as in depth but I totally agree! As testimony grows, evidence helps it to get stronger but faith and the spirit are required to start a testimony! Thanks for a great witness!
Based on some of these comments and countless interactions I've had with similarly confused anti-religious individuals, it would be most helpful to have a clear video on (1) how there are many different definitions of faith (even within the Book of Mormon), and (2) what "faith" means under Hebrews 11:1 (as Wyatt is using it) and as discussed in the Lectures On Faith. It's critical that people understand how our faith as latter-day saints is necessarily based on evidence, just like everything else we or anyone else believe. I'd be happy to help with some ideas as I think it's a gravely misunderstood principle in the world today -- people who claim to believe in science and not faith (see Esqueleto) as if the two are mutually exclusive or as if science can operate without faith. Indeed, a foundational principal of science and philosophy is that we cannot know anything for 100% certain, ergo we are all operating in a state of faith, and a need to act in some way without actually "knowing." I think there could be a helpful way to do this without getting too into the epistemological weeds. Understanding this has certainly helped increase my faith.
God knows all things... we do not. Not knowing all things requires faith--trust in something beyond our current self. Faith is also the fruit of revelation--the only way our "confidence waxes strong is "in the presence of God--the Holy Ghost"... "showing us all things what we should do." All other postures are "pretense." Joseph Smith put it this way... "A parent may whip a child, and justly too, because he stole an apple; whereas, if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; and there would have been no stripes; all the pleasures of the apple would have been secured, and the misery of stealing lost. This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with his children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right, and it is proper that we should enjoy his gifts and blessings, whenever and wherever he is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed." www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/284 In this context... there is no confidence/faith... "without law, without revelation, without commandment." The law is that we must receive revelation which provides a commandment of what to do. This is the only way we have access to the One who knows all things. Any other posture is our pretending that we know enough to make a decision amid our... "not knowing all things." We "never suppose" that man is nothing. We are dangerous because we have no clue what the impact or ripple effect is of any decision we make on our own. God must ratify and empower every decision. "Look unto me in every thought." Earth life is the insanity of our constant stealing of the apple... until we realize the sanity of asking for the apple... The posture of the adversary is that God is an idiot... and that the adversary knows what he is doing. We unwittingly do the exact same EGO thing everytime we make a decision without "confessing the hand of God"--meaning, without taking the thought/decision to His "recommend desk" and having Him direct and empower us to either.... 1 remove the thought/decision from our mind--the entrance to the temple that we are... or 2 take the thought/decision into the heart of the temple that we are and act upon it. We make EVERY DECISION either with God or without God. Faith is... "with God."
Alma 32 21 And now as I said concerning faith - faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true
So faith only pertains to true claims? How do you know it's faith you have then? You don't know the claims are true. You would need to know that first in order to know if you have faith or not.
@@ThomasJDavis I know that the Book of Mormon is real. This text is a versicle is from the book of Alma. If you are interested enough, I respectfully ask you to read it. Maybe you will find and even feel the answers you are looking for. Faith is the act of truly believing David, not the rationalized thinking of the natural man. I respect your opinion, just trying to help.
@@sercomoel3608 I'm just saying. By the time you gain knowledge of something to know whether or not it's faith you have, you won't have faith because you'll have knowledge at that point. According to the passage, it's impossible for someone to know if they have faith in something or not. The "which are true" clause on the end renders the whole thing a useless definition.
@@ThomasJDavis "Philosophical nothingness" is the term perhaps more commonly used. Basically, when the apologist says God created the universe from (philosophical/absolute) "nothing", and when the physicist says the universe came from (non-matter/quantum physics) "nothing", they are using two different definitions of "nothing." Nearly none of the physicists support the concept up creatio ex nihilo.
@@kenhilker2507 Sure. I'm just calling into question the coherency of philosophical nothingness. Like, the only way I can "visualize" an absence of even just an object is in relation to it presence in space and time. So I see a toy in a bedroom. I can picture the bedroom without the toy there. So how could one even conceive of "philosophical nothingness"?
You've made some good points that there's a deity rather than evolution, but is that deity the god in the book of mormon? Is Joseph Smith's 'primary evidence' still considered evidence when the first vision account changed pretty much every time he told it? What about the anachronisms in the book of mormon? What about Joseph Smith's bogus translation of the pearl of great price? I know you guys have tried to make videos on all of these in the past, but they're definitely lacking. There was a true Jesus, but he didn't come to America. There's no evidence that the Nephites existed. How do you explain that that the lds faith is true in spite of all of that?
Hey guys, enjoyed the episodes but left me with more questions. Totally followed along with the Cosmological argument, but I'm more so interested in why Wyatt believes the Mormon church specifically is true. He mentioned the complexity of the Book of Mormon itself as a proof, but I'm not entirely convinced. Does he have a list of certain evidences that tipped the scale in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints favor? Genuinely curious
How do we know things like the cosmological constant or the strength of gravity are free to vary? This entire argument is a calculation based on a single data point which itself is based on the assumption of variation. edit: He says people roll their eyes at hearing about the teleological argument again. I roll my eyes at hearing someone say they have a spin on the argument again. edit2: besides the issue with cosmological constants, while we have only one data point for what we understand to be reality, we have zero data points for the "supernatural" existing (not to mention a coherent and robust definition or description for what it is). So even if 1/6^70 was a probability to take seriously, it is still infinitely more probable than an _assertion_ of metaphysical dualism, which again, no one can coherently describe or define. It is merely an assertion. But even having said all that, how does this even apply to the mormon god. I thought he was a person existing within the universe. He's a universe-dependent being so I don't see the whole relevance of this argument within mormon theology. This also calls into question the LDS metaphysic and how it makes sense with our understanding of the universe. Sure, you could say that an "intra-physical" dualist view has not been falsified, but if physicists do ever come up with a "theory of everything", I'm willing to bet it probably would be.
The problem with using a courtroom analogy is that there are issues who's veracity go beyond what a courtroom would be able to determine. And in those cases, that is where the world of philosophy comes in to play. For instance, even when it comes to examples in the video that are considered "primary evidence", those can still be debated. Like an alleged god appearing to people and saying they're "god". Even if the experience was _convincing,_ that doesn't mean the being's claim is truthful. They could be an incredibly advanced alien and non of us would be the wiser about it. All they would have demonstrated is that they can convince human beings to believe an alien is their religion's god. I'm personally not aware of any claim, or state of affairs in reality for that matter, that cannot be debated. That is sort of one of the intentions behind philosophy, to see if something is indisputable. The comment at 6:29 is also very interesting to me in that it reaffirms what I've considered religion to be advertising to humanity for a long, long while, which is an alleged solution to certain epistemological and metaphysical conundrums. Really, the remark should be that "primary evidence" in the absence of _dogmatism_ is impossible. Obviously dogmatism doesn't allow for "primary evidence" to exist, it's just a delusionary substitute. But just the fact of dogmatism's existence and prevalence tells me just how internally motivated human beings are to find a sense of resoluteness and peace of mind for an all-encompassing and consistent view of reality. And dogmatism's prevalence is also why I consider the treatment of "faith" as a virtue to be one of the most anti-intellectual innovations to ever come out of religion. I think it's largely at the core of what perpetuates fallible reasoning in religious believers.
Facts. Every member of the church should at some point study anti material. I promise if you study it thoroughly without bias, you will come out on the other end with a stronger faith than before. It’s not healthy to do it all the time, but every now and then it’s okay. Watch Faith and Beliefs on this channel. Read the Gospel Topics Essays. The church is not afraid of truth and whether or not they once were doesn’t matter.
If you can take one challenge and thoroughly examine it and research it, then, yes, an anti-challenge can be productive. However, all anti- material relies on a shotgun approach -- which is to hit you with dozens or a hundred things at once. That's because the author knows that 90 of his 100 won't phase you a bit, as you already know they're false. But he's hoping one or two get through -- and that you won't have the time or skill for a thorough investigation. Then worry and fear can do their work and erode your faith. So, yes, investigate. But choose to do it in manageable chunks. By the way, why is it that your inability to do a triple-integral partial differential equation not cause you to doubt arithmetic? Because that's not how knowledge works. The more one knows, the more one realizes s/he doesn't know.
@@GameAholicsVideo You must know some particularly scheming "anti-m". I suppose there are some. But most long lists of concerns people have are just that - long lists of concerns. Turns out, the list of concerns involving the church is not short. Don't assume people with long lists are just out to get you. Most of the time they are sincere, and being more honest than they ever have been with their thoughts and feelings. I do appreciate your willingness to look at both sides though, even if it is cautious. I'm all for being cautious. Thanks for encouraging people to peek at both sides of issues now and then.
The Fine Tuning Argument (the argument you provided) is an interesting one. However, there are numerous objections raised by serious and well respected philosophers. See the work of Aron Lucas and Paul Draper. Why didn’t you raise these objections in the video if you have done so much work comparing both sides of the argument?
Probably because that could take hours. But Stephen Meyer addresses some of those arguments here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GQ7GBZm087Y.html Let me know if you'd like more sources that address that issue.
I am fully aware of the attention that this argument gets in scholarship, I asked the question because the people in the video did not demonstrate similar awareness.
What do you think of praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true as talked about in Moroni 10? If I pray to know this is true, why would that lead me to the conclusion that the LDS church is the one I should join? Have you researched the Church of Jesus Christ out of Pennsylvania. They also believe the Book of Mormon is scripture. It could very well be that church I should join.
Started watching at 24 seconds after you posted it up.. first comment get in. By the way I am from Leeds England UK 🇬🇧 if you guys are interested on where we are all from
What miracles did Jospeh Smith ever perform and what miracles have any Latter Day Saint performed? Did Jospeh Smith part the Red Sea, turn a staff into a serpent, feed a multitude with two loaves and five fishes? Please id like to hear of these miracles?
That's like saying "What did Michael Jordan ever win? Did he get 10 championships with the Celtics?" Joseph did plenty, but no, he did not walk on water like Jesus, because..well...he's not Jesus.
I have a question that’s fundamental to the LDS belief. Related to the promise that God will answer your prayer for if you sincerely pray about if the BoM is true. Do you have to have faith first, or will God tell you it’s true first? Which way around is it? I don’t know which way around members think it is but I never get a straight answer, it’s always mental gymnastics to not give an answer / to say it’s both / neither. God is not a God of confusion according to the bible so there should be a clear, simple answer to this question
I hope I can give you my honest opinion. Moroni 10:3-5, he asks us that when we revive these things, he exhorts us to ask God the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true. Then he goes on to say that if you ask with a sincere heart and real intent, having faith in Christ, He (Christ) will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Spirit aka Holy Ghost. Clearly you need to have faith, you need to believe that God will answer your prayers by the power of the Holy Ghost. Why would God tell us if something is true if we really do not want to know? That makes no sense. As you said God the Father is not a God of confusion, His word is set in stone, by faith ye shall know all things (Moroni 10:5). So to answer your question, yes you need faith, that is the bottom line. I would like to add my secondary evidence and witness to the Book of Mormon, I truly know with all my heart that God lives, and that He sent His Son to die for all mankind, that all may be saved by Him. I know that Christ came to the Americas as shown in 3rd Nephi, I know that God is the author of the Book of Mormon, and that He was also the author of the Bible. I know that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove. I know that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. I know that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and real intent, having faith in God, they will know that it was Heavenly inspired. I testify that the Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ, it is a companion scripture to the Bible, I believe with all my heart that this is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. I give you my humble, and honest testimony of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith in the wonderful name of the Savior of the universe, Jesus Christ, amen. I would exhort you to read the Book of Mormon, as a child, ready for the Spirit of God, for then will He know that you want to know the truth. May God bless you, and may He be with you as you strive to be more Christ-like.
@@elizabethkinnear7140 Yes, it seems like so many are wanting a visit like Saul, Alma the younger, Lamen and Lemuel, etc. had. And if that really happened, agency would be tossed out the window, just like Satan wants. It is important in the end times to have a sturdy foundation like Pres. Nelson taught and like hymn 85 and the wise man and the foolish man. It is insane how emphasis gaining a knowledge of the Book of Mormon is, it is like it is God inspired, oh wait, it is! Amen Elizabeth.
What if I don’t have faith in God? I have tried and tried for 10+ years but just can’t bring myself to believe it. It would be like if I asked you to believe there are fairies living in your garden, no matter how hard you try, it’s impossible to make yourself believe something that you don’t believe. So if I don’t have the faith to start with, God won’t reveal himself to me? That doesn’t seem like a very compassionate God
@@ellak1382 You Are Not Alone! Many members lose their faith everyday. But they test their face like the Mustard Seed parable. How do I explain to test? Please do not expect miracles. But at the same time appreciate life. Take a Buddhist point of view. Then continue to have a conversation with members that you can trust. If nothing happens, just continue the search. Let that be your religion.
@@ellak1382 I hear this all the time. A simple answer is that faith grows by doing things that require more faith. For example, if you do not have faith to read the scriptures and pray daily, then start doing those things, then you will have that faith. It is very hard to believe something that you do not already believe, yet that is where the Holy Ghost comes, the Holy Ghost is the Comforter, He is a peace bringer, joy giver, messenger from God. If you really want to know if the Book of Mormon is true, pray to God and ask that He may give you the Holy Ghost to be with you, sin will deny the presence of the Holy Ghost, now you do not need to be sinless, that's impossible, you need to be worthy of the Holy Spirit, you need to strive to do the small, and big things as said in the scriptures, like keep the commandments. If God just reveals himself to everyone, regardless of religion or view, etc. then agency is no longer a factor, now I know for sure that Satan wanted to have 0 agency, to make people follow him, yet Christ said that He would go and give all the glory to the Father, that all mankind will have agency. I hope this helps you, and if you would like, I will pray for you to help you on your journey.
First of all, the title of video is misleading it should have been called “How I KNOW God is True” your statistics were all geared towards the creation of the world. Not that the Mormon Church is true. I agree there could be a God, I don’t rule that out. Because of some of the evidence you cited for creation of the Universe. That is why I am a “Deist”. However, you take a huge leap in logic to assume those same statistics would apply to the truth claims of the Mormon church. Garden of Eden in Jackson, Country Missouri alone drops your statistical odd down enough to be a safe bet it is not true. Throw in the 1769 King James Bible translation errors are found in the Book of Mormon, which claims to be an ancient book, and I would bet the farm against it. At 15:40 you gave “How do you Explain” examples of personal experiences to support truth claims of the church. This is an easy explanation and as a man who touts his logical brain will be easy to grasp. “Anecdotal evidence” is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner. For example, my 90 year old grandma smoked her whole life and never got cancer, therefore smoking isn’t bad. This type of argument is weak. ALL religions use it claiming a spiritual experience. See this video as an example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UJMSU8Qj6Go.html Lastly, Wyatt as someone who has tipped the scales so far in favor the church is true. I would like you to watch this video and address its points. It is titled “Dear Believer” and it is my “How do you Explain?” examples for you. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xIErAz-ZO-I.html
I think you're conflating experiential evidence with anecdotal evidence. Nothing is more compelling or convincing to a percipient person than experiential evidence--e.g. being an eye-witness.
I All Honesty, having being a convert to the Church, I've never considered I was trying to Trick myself to believe the Teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Just. Saying. 43 years.
Matter has always existed and therefore the universe has always been. There is no wall at the edge of the universe saying that the universe ends here, there is only undeveloped space within the universe but there is no point where the universe ends. God is eternal and so is the universe and they are one in the same, and within the universe there are individuals including our Father who are God's and are so connected to the universe that it obeys His will.
@@johnrowley310 if you would like to debate the subject then let us do the debate face to face over whatever media source works. I will not debate through text.
I would like to hear him go into his logic of went the church is true more. I feel like he spent most of his time on pricing existence of a God. I would be interested to follow same logic for church things.
Wyatt, could you share with us a document of the items you "weighed" and which side of the scales they ended on? What was the best argument against hebraisms?
lol, talking about evidence for the church: "they can't explain it" Three seconds later talking about evidence against the church: "The fact that I can come up with an explanation shows there might be one so there probably is!"
Alma had explained that some were brought directly into the presence of and had seen God. (Nephi's and his Brother, The brother of Jared, and also the two Lamanite Kings who were taken up out of their bodies up into God's Abode in the Spirit and the truth was then revealed to them. That's why a sudden change came over those two kings after their experience they had with God. And also the prophet Isaiah who was taken up into God's abode in the spirit to see God and come into the presence of the angles and God and all his glory. (Isaiah Chapter 6) Ezekiel also saw God, and also Daniel when God came down and visited him in person like with Joseph Smith, So the pattern is there. Stephen also saw God open up the veil to show himself with his son Jesus to him and so on).. So there are those who have come to a sure knowledge of God and there are those who have a faith and a belief in God who have not yet come to a sure knowledge. As Alma Chapter 32 explains the different levels of faith as growing from a small little seed up into a great tree of life. Alma teaches that when this tree of life grows within us and we keep feeding that tree and nourishing it, then we can then look forward to the fruit thereof and pluck the fruit from it which is most sweet and most precious.....Which was seen in Lehi's Dream.... 'To Him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life"" Rev 2:7 "Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life. (Rev 22:14).
Belief in God - fine. But the real question is what do you believe God is like? Like Jesus during his ministry? Like the theological Jesus that has and will destroy innumerable people? What is God like? That is the real question. That's what makes the difference. Religion as I've experienced it tries to sell both at the same time - sometimes like Jesus during his ministry, and at other times very violent. And if you believe both, then what's the value of believing in God?
RFM? Those angry children whose intellectual prowess mostly consists of throwing around cultish buzzwords like "TSCC" and refusing to use General Authorities' middle initials? LOL!
@@christopherrandallnicholson "Refusing to use middle initials". That's rich. From now on I expect you to always use my middle initial when referring to me - because I am that much more important than everyone else.
@@christopherrandallnicholson That's a lot of pressure: "have a good day". I'm having a bit of a frustrating day dealing with a recked car, with no clear diagnosis of what is wrong and how much it will cost to fix. First-world problem I suppose, but frustrating. How's your day going?
If you want to know some of the evidences, Latter Day Saints Q&A on RU-vid has a whole evidence series on BofM, pre-earth, restoration of priesthood etc… it’s so informative and indeputable … things that JS couldn’t have known that they’re just recently finding out abt as more ancient records and archeology is revealed.
You have certainty in your beliefs, good for you. Join the club. But Jesus never said certainty, or testimony is what it's all about. He said what really counts in judgement is "I was hungry .. as you have done ... to me". That's where real spirituality is. Right there. Religious authorities aren't making money on that so they have other things to sell. But Jesus clearly taught what he clearly taught, in person, on purpose. Let's not look past it. Show me in the synoptic gospels where Jesus says belief is vital. Show me. And what does he say IS vital?
Wyatt, please explain the platypus. Was that thing just leftover parts? Did God mixing sugar, spice, and everything nice, bumped into Chemical UG and voila!? *I NEED TO KNOW!!*
So a 15 minute video covering all the topics isn't possible, but can there be a substantial list provided that may show how the thousands number could possibly be reached?
I've been a Latter-day Saint my entire life (forty years). I appreciate your interpretation of God and what makes it seem implausible to you that there wouldn't be one. It's true, what are the chances that everything lined up so perfectly that life on earth formed in exactly the right way that humans could live here, and we just happen to have made it to that anomaly of a place? However, that same line of thinking has always made me doubt that MY church is the one and only true church. Out of the entire history of earth, what are the chances that out of tens of thousands of religions and billions and billions of people, the one and only *true* church just happens to be the one that started 150 years before I was born, and the current prophet of that church just happens to live within 30 minutes of where I grew up in Utah, and just happens to be my same race, speak my same language, and share my culture, food and customs? I also understand that there are many, many things in our church that might lend evidence to it being true (all of the pioneer stories, the Book of Mormon, so many missionaries willing to leave everything behind to go serve for two years). However, I've also started to see there are just as many people who believe with equal certainty that their churches are true (with leaders that also live near them, speak their language, and share their culture and customs). I heard the recording of a heartfelt testimony in a Sacrament Meeting where a teenager shared how true the church was, how inspired Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon was - then ended by saying she had a testimony of polygamy and revealed that she was a sister wife. (It was a fundamentalist Mormon group, and I couldn't even tell the difference between her sincere beliefs and those I hear at the pulpit on fast Sunday in my ward until the very end.) I feel like this video is a good enough response to why you believe there is a God, but it doesn't tell me and reason why the LDS church is true and the others are wrong. I feel like anyone from any religion could use what's said in this video as their reasoning for why their church is true by changing our a few details. I hope you do a follow up video that covers this. Thanks.
Hey Abby: Great questions. I think that God is well aware of the human tendency to disbelieve based on the mathematical unlikelihood that, out of all the world's religions, we're the lucky ones who somehow won the truth sweepstakes. And if you stopped the analysis there, you would likely be inclined to deny it's truthfulness on that basis alone. However, when you look at the actual evidence, the mathematical likelihoods quickly flip the other direction, exponentially. This is why the Church encourages everyone, as early and earnestly as they can, to review the evidence themselves and ask God for answers. Something interesting I learned on my mission after talking to many thousands of people about their religious beliefs (including countless Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Spiritualists, Pagans, Hindus, etc., all in various stages of belief within those systems), few people actually believe what we believe: that their church is "true" as we claim ours is. What we really mean when we say our church is "true," is that we have a living prophet and God's priesthood authority to seal things in this life that will remain bound in the next. If you look at it that way, there are VERY few organizations even making such a claim. And based on my thousands of religious discussions with people of all stripes, most people don't believe in their religious organizations in that way. They usually just pick and choose from among the beliefs they were taught--not a single Hindu I met believed in an elephant god for instance and most Catholics don't believe the sacrament actually transmutated into Christ's actual body when blessed. Not surprisingly, I noticed that upon closer inspection they all tended to believe in the same eternal truths--including many of the essential truths that we believe. The Restored Church gives a fulsome context for these truths that many already know to be true, and provides a way for them to return to God and obtain blessings in this life. No other religious group is doing missionary work like we are. That's a compelling fact. A closer look reveals that our church is distinguished in MANY significant ways. The Book of Mormon is one of the greatest distinguishing features of our faith and I believe God gave it to us to help his children short-circuit all the confusion and get a relatively quick, clear and authoritative answer amidst all the confusion about "who is right" or "where can I go for truth." There is nothing else like the Book of Mormon out there. It's existence is so controversial because it ultimately cannot be explained without turning to God. The evidence strongly supports its truthfulness, making it mathematically impossible (by my estimation) for the Church not to be true.
@@raulofmustachio3d I appreciate your answer. It still doesn't quite make it all work perfectly for me, but I'm glad (sincerely) that it does for you. My mom went to Methodist College in North Carolina and had, of all things, an LDS roommate who introduced her to the sister missionaries and led to her baptism. She then moved to Utah, which is where she met my dad and I've lived my entire life. Her mother was devastated by her change of faith, and when she got married in the temple they didn't invite her family to come out because they didn't have a reception or event after the temple sealing, so there was no point having then travel across the country for just that. Her only sister and her became very distant after her baptism, and her dad passed away not that long after. I grew up with very little involvement with her side. I remember thinking, "What is wrong with them that they aren't following my mom and joining the true church? Why are they upset she left their Methodist church when my real church is so much better?". I don't think they'd say there is only one "true" church, but they would probably have all said the church my mom joined that cut her and her children off from her family so painfully was *not* a true one, either. I hope we're better now at not encouraging converts to disconnect so severely from their non-believing family and friends, but when I was growing up I was definitely under the impression that we were better, smarter and more enlightened than my extended family who had no interest in the LDS church. I guess I share that experience to say I see people from other faiths who feel just as strongly that our prophets, apostles, Book of Mormon and all other parts of the restoration are as meaningless as we think they are life changing. Many years ago I overheard a co-worker once laughing about how incredibly boring LDS church meetings and scriptures were, and was genuinely stunned because I had never once heard anyone before say they were anything except remarkable and filled with the Spirit of God. 😄 It made me think for the first time that maybe everyone doesn't see the world the same way I do. I think I'm arriving at a point where I think a church is true for an individual person - but probably not for *everyone*. I think the Methodist church was true for my grandparents and aunt, and the LDS church is true for my mom, and maybe no organized religion at all is true for that old co-worker of mine who prefers to be meditating in nature instead. It's just becoming too hard for me to say that my Utah-based religion and culture is the best one, and that we should cover the earth with it and have everyone convert to our belief system. If it really was that amazing, wouldn't we grow faster? Smart phones, computers, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, Disney parks... all of those are ideas and products that are so universally appealing that they've spread like wildfire to become part of modern life and culture all over the world. I guess I keep thinking that if the gospel really is everything (to everyone) that I've been told to believe it was, people all over the world would know as much about it and it'd be as popular as the latest Disney movie, not densely situated right here in Utah County where I live and then in little pockets everywhere else. In the 80s and 90s I was told the church would be in the hundreds of millions by now and accelerating in growth, but we aren't. Like I said, I really appreciate your response! My heart is telling me that maybe this is the true church for *you*, and the true church for *my mom*, and maybe even the true church for millions of other people- but as I get older it gets harder and harder to believe it's the true church for every person who ever lived. That doesn't mean it's not incredibly valuable to many of us - just that maybe we should be okay with the fact that our form of communion with the divine may not be for everyone else. Anyway, thanks for your reply and the conversation. Merry Christmas!
Faith and theory are two different things. Theories are based on observations and experimentation. Faith, by definition, is not based on proof. And so, people don’t “have to have faith.” Atheists and many agnostics live without faith. They base their life decisions on observations, experimentation, evidence, proof, emotions, etc.
To build on what you have contributed to the discussion: Definition of belief: 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Sounds like a theory can be considered a belief with these definitions. Have a great day 👍😁
Faith has many definitions. Faith as properly discussed in this video, by definition, IS based on evidence (I believe you misspoke when you said “proof” which is a different principal). It’s also the most renowned biblical definition of faith being evidence based. Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is the “assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” Under this definition, it’s most certainly true that all intelligent beings of necessity act entirely on faith.
@@raulofmustachio3d From the Oxford dictionary: Faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than PROOF.
@@harryhenderson2479 i assume that youve read from more than one dictionary in search of the definition. Have you read what Merriam-Webster defines as belief?
I would have thought that the chances of rolling a 6 twice would be 2 out of 12. Six sides on a dice and that would be 12 sides. Two of them been sixes. I’ve played bird games and often rolled 6 twice in a row so it surely is a bigger chance than just 1 in 36. But I agree the chance of rolling a 6 35 times in a row is so improbable I’m not sure whether anybody has ever even done it unless cheating was involved
There’s not a bigger chance than 1 in 36, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to roll 2 sixes in a row. I’ve definitely done that heh. It’s 1 in 36 because there are 36 possible outcomes. Why are there 36 possible outcomes? Because there’s two 6 sided dice, 6 x 6 = 36. Here are the 36 possible outcomes: (1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6) (2,1) (2,2) (2,3) (2,4) (2,5) (2,6) (3,1) (3,2) (3,3) (3,4) (3,5) (3,6) (4,1) (4,2) (4,3) (4,4) (4,5) (4,6) (5,1) (5,2) (5,3) (5,4) (5,5) (5,6) (6,1) (6,2) (6,3) (6,4) (6,5) (6,6)
@@naliburg if he threw the dice together this is true but if he threw the dice separately, each time it would seem to be a 1 in 6 chance, adding up to 2 in 12. It’s confusing. My stand would be that there are 36 different possible outcomes but that the overall chance would still be about 2/12. I feel as though he is confusing all the possibilities with how big the chance is. To me they seem a bit different
@@naliburg I’ve just noticed there is a problem in the math because you lost (1,2) and also list (2,1) but they are the same outcome. Same with (6,5) and (5,6) So it can’t be 1 in 36.
@@cultfiction3865 there’s no problem with the math! I googled this and got it off several websites. There’s a (1,2) and a (2,1) because there’s two dices and Dice A rolls a 1 first and then a 2 second. Dice B rolls a 2 first and then a 1 second. There would be a 2/36 chance to have 1 and 2 be the numbers on the Dice! The reason why (6,6) only has a 1 in 36 chance is the same reason why (5,5) (4,4) (3,3) (2,2) (1,1) do. They’re the same number. If he threw the dice separately and then was looking for two sixes it would still be a one in 36 chance. This is because if you’re still looking for two numbers on the dice then there’s 36 options. You could try to argue and say well since you can get (2,1) and (1,2) more than one in 36 times then it’d only be one in 18. That’s true for (2,1) or (3,4) or (5,1) but does not apply to (6,6). ((( or 5,5 4,4 3,3 2,2 1,1 )))
The chances of anything complex happening in the Universe due to the low entropic nature of particles is extreme to say the least. Things in the universe have no right to move in the order they do and if you throw random chance at it, you would barely scratch the surface of the infinite events that occur every microsec on every cosmic scale. Without intelligence we don't exist, but because intelligence has apparently spawned out of a chaotic universe, it means that our future is of a higher level of intelligence and if things happen the same way they always do, those higher intelligence already exist solely based on chance. You can't explain human intelligence without the inevitable possibility of human evolution to a higher form. God exist because we exist and we exist because God exist and we are bound upwards unless you believe nihilism.
I've been spending a lot of time compiling and research on arguments all over the place it is fascinating to me and I enjoy doing this but I have been having some difficulty putting it together so I can more easily access responses and what not hoping to do a Theology type RU-vid Channel where I touch on an array of arguments on both sides. I have found my fair share of secondary evidences and beautiful unity in the scriptures its unfathomable that God doesn't exist. I'm eager to learn more if there are some resources or a possibility to share notes with anyone I would greatly appreciate it lol. Hey Wyatt send me a link to your notes for a bit of a head start on some things (that is if you or anyone else wants to lol). I guess I envision forming a giant and easy to access database of arguments and information on theology is what I'm trying to make. I'm willing to share some of my notes as well. I focused most of my notes currently on world religions beliefs and interpretations of scripture. Also if anyone has any tips or websites for doing more research on this stuff reply them to me. Ooh and Join "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint's" Discord. It's a great place to chat! All are welcome!
All you did is argue in favor of there being a God... that doesn't prove Christianity or Mormonism or any other particular religion... it's not like the only choices are Mormon or atheist
A dice isn’t really something where an exact mathematical chance can be relied upon since, some people figure out how hard or soft to throw a dice to increase their chances of rolling certain numbers. Some people kind of get good at rolling sixes. Just saying
Hello. I am an atheist, so I thought I’d correct some misconceptions in the video. As an atheist, I don’t have faith that anything you listed in the video or that any notion at all is true. Quite the opposite: Atheism means I don’t believe in any gods. I have no good reasons to believe that any gods exist. If I find sufficient reason, I will happily become a theist, though I may still lack faith, as you defined it. If you ever need someone to represent the atheist position, I’m happy to help. While I’m here, I’ll pose a question for you: if religion and science both require faith, is there a religious method for discerning truth that is as accurate as the scientific method?
Great comments Sean. So what would you consider a good reason to believe that God exists? Why would the odds presented hear against God not existing be enough of a reason?
All that I got from it is that you have faith in being an atheist. And that you have secondary evidence of logical understanding that there cannot be a god.
There are few worldview level questions about origin, destination, value, purpose, meaning, and beauty that you can produce evidence for with the scientific method, there just isn’t primary evidence that is observable, testable, and repeatable. The scientific method is a great tool for a narrow function, and doesn’t fit answering philosophical or theological questions. Looking at and understanding physical processes gets you more details about process but gets you no closer to what could have really brought them about. The foundation of justice, ethics, values, and behaviors in the writings about the Hebrew God are testable, can be personally put into practice, and they have proved over many decades to produce beneficial results when applied consistently. To a great degree of accuracy within the writings, all instances of judgement or punishment can be shown to reduce irrational unmerited behavior and instances of guidance and blessing can be shown to result in the growth of integrity and character.
@@rockartalan: Hello. Good questions. In order to accept claims that there is a god in the universe that is actively affecting reality, I would require some novel, testable predictions to demonstrate this interaction. If an omniscient, omnipotent god is making any efforts to remain hidden for whatever reason, then I’m not sure there is anything that can convince me. Does that help? As for the dice game, odds, etc., from the video, I don’t find the logic being used to be convincing. I’ll try to explain why, but let me begin by saying that, Like Wyatt, I’m not an expert in the fields discussed-I’m a plumber, and Wyatt is a DJ, I think. Anyway, here’s how I see it. We have only one universe to use as a reference, so as far as we know universes only exist in one way. Nobody knows exactly why the universe began to expand when and how it did, including generations of astrophysicists, who have devoted their lives to answering this question. However, as far as I know, humanity has learned nothing verifiable about the behavior of the early universe from any religious writings. Rather, various religions make claims about the events or processes that science hasn’t fully explained, such as what might cause universe expansion. Various religions have done this as long as we have recorded history, though, and their explanations have been replaced steadily by scientific explanations. We know that diseases aren’t demons, that lightning doesn’t come from Zeus, that pork isn’t inherently unclean, etc. Does that make sense?
I don't think claiming the church is true because Joseph Smith was an unlearned person is a fair apologist argument. The reason is because Muslims also claim this about their prophet Mohammed when he dictated the Quran. So then with that logic Islam is also the one true religion. And I know people like to say 'well he was inspired' but islam is extremely different than Mormonism so that argument doesn't stand.
*Too many double negatives* Your standard is self-evidently erroneous. We don't take peoples' claim in isolation and at the expense of everything else. Wyatt's entire point was you go passed the claim and look at the underlying evidence of the claim. You're demanding that we look only at the claim, which would necessarily render the weight of Thomas Edison's claims no greater than those of Tony the Tiger. In addition, your comment presumes that there is not any overlap between Mohammed's claims and Joseph Smiths.
Regarding the argument from design, how do you account for flaws in design? Here's one example of many. The drain for a human sinus is at the top of the sinus cavity. All African primates have their sinuses like this. This is a completely, pun intended, illogical place to put a drain on anything and leads humans to have more respiratory infections, etc. At the same time, the Asian branch of the primate family tree has the drain for the sinuses at the bottom, allowing for greater functionality and reduced illness. The traditional creation narrative as well as the deistic view inherit in both theistic evolution and intelligent design (as I've heard it described at least) would preclude the existence of said flaws as that would imply that God is flawed and therefore logically not god.
for a FoR for this, these days I identify as a Jewish humanist but my background is as an orthodox jew so I'm familiar with both sides of the argument. Since I cannot in good faith logically prove the argument for the existence of a deity one way or the other, I have chosen to mainly focus on this life and doing what I can to help people here and now.
Yeah, sorry these are fairly poor arguments for the LDS church because they makes some HUGE unfounded assumptions about the probability of the universe being like it is. We don't even know if the expansion of the universe could have been a different value. For all we know, the chance the universe expanded at the rate it did was 100%. We also don't know that it only expanded once. For all we know it goes through an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction which would make our universe an eventuality even if the expansion rate was indeed as uncommon as portrayed in the video. So that answers the Big Bang. As Wyatt mentioned, evolution does a great job showing how life could have come to be without a god. Wyatt then goes on to assume that the probability of life on earth is a statistical improbability, which again, we have no idea because we don't yet have the capabilities to see how common life is among the stars. However, assuming for case of argument that it is true that a planetary body selected at random from our galaxy has a vanishingly small chance of hosting life, it doesn't really affect the probability in this case because we aren't selecting the planet at random. The chance of intelligent beings becoming aware on a planet inhospitable to life is 0%, (especially if there is no god). This means that simply due to us existing, the chance of us originating on a planet that supports life is 100%. As for the numbers for the human protein, Wyatt specifically said that's the chance of of it coming together completely randomly. I am unaware of any human proteins being made completely randomly independent of the external processes that were selected by evolution over millions of years. Sadly after weighing the evidence, I've found that I don't have a good reason to believe the church is true anymore. As for how can I explain miracles and experiences, it's fairly simple. Human psychology. People generally interpret memories, events, and dreams based on what they already believe or what they've been exposed too. Keep in mind this can be turned on it's head. How do you explain the claimed miracles, and spiritual experiences of the countless people in other religions. There are far more accounts miracles and experiences reported in larger religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Catholicism than in Mormonism. How do you account for all of that secondary evidence? Surely it's not all conspiracy or coincidence? Yes, I know there COULD be answers for every issue that plagues the church. In my experience, those answers seem unlikely or contrived and therefore I find them unconvincing. (But doesn't necessarily mean they aren't true). As I mentioned earlier, when I get to the weighing of the scales if find I don't have a good reason to believe the truth claims of the church. This was disappointing for me, because I really would love it if the church were true. Not only would it give me the confidence that I'd be with my family again, which is incredibly important to me, but it would also make my life so much easier in so many ways. My wife still believes in the church and most of my family are still believing members of the church. It would be easier on our relationships if we had the same beliefs. Wanting to find evidence for the truthfulness of the gospel is the main reason I still watch videos like this. I keep hoping for some new perspective that I hadn't considered that will resolve my concerns and give me good reason to believe. Just to answer a few more questions that may come up, the reason I don't "choose" to believe anyways, is because as much as I'd love to believe in the church, it's more important to me to make sure what I believe is actually true. This gets into the last claim in this video that atheism or agnosticism requires as much or more faith than belief in the church. This is partly true but not in the way portrayed in this video. It does take faith to trust that if God exists, He knows what I need to believe in Him and so as long as I keep an open mind He will eventually lead me to Him. So yes, I have faith faith in the sense that I trust that God, if He exists will guide me. That being said, saying I'm unconvinced of the truth claims of the church takes no faith. I don't need prove the church isn't true, any more than being LDS requires you to dispel every other claim of every other religion.
So you truly believe that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to engage in consensual sexual relations with people they love? Simply because they are attracted to the same gender?
Very enjoyable. I don't think you understand Atheism tho. It only has to do with not believing your "evidence". That's all. As far as probability, what is the probability that everything in the universe is exactly where it is right now? It's impossibly improbable. And yet, everything IS where it is right now. Such discussions are not meaningful and only serve to entrench belief. It's sleight of hand.
Wyatt - I mean this with all sincerity: Apologetics ain’t your thing. Your arguments lack real substance. I advise you to do something else with your time. Mormon apologetics is in desperate need of genuinely big thinkers, and buddy, you ain’t one of them.
Harry - I mean this with all sincerity: Persuasive writing in RU-vid comments isn't your thing. Your arguments lack real substance. I advise you to do something else with your time. RU-vid commentary is in desperate need of big thinkers, and buddy, you ain't one of them. ;)
Hopefully religion hasn't destroyed your relationship. Can you talk about religion with your spouse without huge stress in the room? If so you're lucky, or very mature.
@@leem3299 We still have a good marriage but he complains sometimes when I watch or give a testimony. He goes to a only a bible church, so we don't see eye to eye and we just can't agree. I hold my ground. I've had to many experiences to ever deny.Thanks for asking
@@annroe2891 Well done. Given the circumstances, that sounds good. And hopefully he reacts well if you show him this video. Here's an unsolicited suggestion. For me it has been earth shattering to read the synoptic gospels, without any preconceptions - just looking for what Jesus emphasized most. Not trying to fit every detail into a religious story, but just looking for what was most important to Jesus during his ministry. I'm curious if you find him emphasizing anything more than 'Love others as self' - As in "I was hungry .. as you have done .. to me". That's Jesus loving others as himself. He made up parables emphasizing this - compassion etc. His criticism of religious and political authorities centered on this. His example demonstrated this. And this is something people of all religions and no religions can share as a common value. If that really was the most important thing to Jesus, as humble and non-churchy as it is, then isn't that cool? Sorry this requires holding a little less tightly to the gospel of John, where belief in Jesus takes center stage (and each religion has a different interpretation of that), but to me it has been helpful to consider the synoptic gospels on their own merit. Anyway, good luck with everything, and curious about thoughts you have.
This channel has a video about the anachronisms that you can check out. Goes through an informative timetable about how over time the number of anachronisms has decreased by a large percent with new research. There are still some that are head scratching that we don’t have an answer for yet.
The exact opposite is true. How do you account for the many former anachronisms that the Book of Mormon has debunked? Since the BofM was first published in 1830, its critics have identified a total of 204 anachronisms within the BofM--things like honeybees, horses, chariots barley, steel, and cement, that were not known to have existed in Meso-America at the time the BofM claims. Since then, 143 of those have been fully debunked through subsequent archeological finds and the like. An additional 27 of the original 204 anachronisms are trending toward being debunked, leaving only 35 that remain still unaccounted for. Going through each of the few remaining unaccounted for “anachronisms” would be largely meaningless given this pattern, especially given the fact that less than 1% of Mesoamerica has been excavated thus far. The far greater intellectual burden currently rests upon anyone who demands proof of the few remaining anachronisms, as they should be trying to reconcile how an 1820s NY farm boy somehow undisputedly knew more about Mesoamerica than anyone else on earth at the time. Alternatively, they have to account for his supernatural guessing abilities.
@@loridavis7086 i didn’t say anything about the Bible. We’re talking about the BoM here. Anyways, y’all are one google search away from realizing this church is baloney. If you don’t want to venture outside church approved sources, you’re just digesting what the church wants you to. Nowhere outside of church approved sources does any evidence backing the BoM exist. Nowhere.
I am not arguing whether God exists or not...that is faith. However, your use of maths and logic are totally flawed in your attempt to show that logic can explain the existence of God or even the Big Bang theory. We are where we are so how we got here is either a reliance on faith or a reliance on science. Sorry my friend your use of Big Numbers has no relevance in this debate...and using them just brings a smile to the face of even the most mediocre of mathematicians.
I don't think this random internet guy said the Big Bang didn't happen. His argument is much more nuanced than that. Moreover, *Stephen* Hawking's theories tend to support the LDS doctrinal understanding of the universe.
I like Saints Unscripted, but not this particular chapter. The theme here is the process of weighing evidence and logical reasoning -- but it's not the presentation of evidence. So assertions that there is "bonkers" evidence doesn't belong in this. Also many of the numbers used aren't explained -- so the end up losing their meaning. One of those, the big bang, should be "what are the odds that an uncontrolled explosion creates the precise conditions needed for life to develop?"
The argument from design has some legitimacy for suggesting that the universe had an intelligent creator. But it's quite a leap to go from that to saying that the origins of the LDS church are "logical" and the church is true. Also, contrary to what you allege, Joseph Smith did not display any truly remarkable understanding of ancient languages. Also, none of his predictions were truly remarkable either. Nothing in the Book of Mormon has been revealed to be historically accurate. Literally nothing, in fact quite the contrary. And this is all why your friends told you it's not a good idea to try to prove Mormonism by logic.
@@suem6004 830 pages of material taken (plagiarized?) from The Late War, The First Book of Napoleon, View of the Hebrews, Captain Kidd, Solomon Spalding, Rev. Jonathan Edwards, Rev. Benjamin G. Paddock, Handsome Lake, Mercy Otis Warren, Alexander Campbell, the Bible... The sources can go on for a while. Shall I continue? Would you like examples?
@@MichaelSmith-fq3pg I assume that you have read every work completely that you have named to verify this claim. So Mr. Smith, the class would like to see what you found in your research
@@yasaf934 One example of mosaic plagarism... The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain, chapter 11, line 17: "And the army of Columbia went into winter quarters; for the earth was covered with snow, and the waters of the great lakes, on the borders of which they had pitched their tents, were congealed." Alma 51:32: "... And it came to pass that Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the seashore, and after this manner were they driven."
10 thousand hours of studying this you claim! I dont believe you! Its likely a gross exageration. And your an expert on physics! Huh! Your should get a job voicing adverts on radio stations you talk that fast. Adverts sell things and thats what you are trying to do! Old fashioned fast talk
The first mistake he makes is strawmanning atheism. Atheism in the most basic sense of the word is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. However, he misrepresents atheism and makes it out to be a belief system that makes a myriad of different claims thus crafting a strawman that he can easily burn down. He also butchers the definition of faith. In a religious sense, faith is when someone believes something in absence of sufficient evidence. Religious believers will try to shy away from that definition and broaden the word to make it sound more like "trust" or a "confidence". They do this because they want to make it sound like everyone has faith when in reality that is not the case. He then gives his version of the design argument and uses dice as a demonstration of probability. Here is my challenge: Play a game of Yahtzee. Record the results of each dice roll. After the game ends look at all the results of each dice roll you've collected from the entire game. The chances of those dice landing the way they did in the proper order are almost impossible and yet they still landed the way they did. Would you say that an invisible magic man was using telekinetic powers to make sure the dice landed in a certain way? I bet not. So then why would you say the same thing for the universe? This planet let alone the rest of the universe is enough to show that this place was ,at the very least, not designed for us in mind. Natural disasters, Deadly predators, only 1.2 percent of the water is drinkable, a sun that burns us and gives us cancer, Freezing cold climates that would kill us if we didn't have proper clothing and shelter, and medical conditions that up until 100 years ago were death sentences are just a few examples. Does this point to an all loving designer with humans in mind? Finally when you talk about the "weighing of the scales" it is pretty clear that mormonism fails without a doubt. You can talk about all of the "hebraisms" in the book of mormon but that does not get you out of the myriad of other issues with the lds church such as: The Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates, No doctrine has gone unchanged, trusting a subjective feeling (the Spirit) to guide you to truth, Blacks and the priesthood, Joseph Smith's inconsistencies, Joseph Smith's false prophecies, and many more.
Love it. 'Duke of Sahib' makes a carefully calibrated nonsense argument for atheism and against faith, then - predictably - knee-jerks into the inevitable bash of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and the Prophet Joseph Smith; and also takes a few more shots in starting his own Gish gallop - love it! You have no other methods - you guys are so predictably weak in any kind of case against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Oh, and by the way, why are you out here in the first place doing this dark work on a pro-Latter-Day-Saint channel?
@@michaelpeterson6174 so are you actually going to address my points? My list at the end was to simply show a few examples of some of the biggest problems with the lds church. The Gish gallop technique only works in a formal debate with equal time when a debater overwhelms his opponent with points to ensure that he can’t get to all of them in his equal time. In a comment section this is not the case. You can respond to as many things as you’d like. From talking to Latter Day Saints their best response to any of these issues is just to have faith or give some desperate spin or apologetic. So instead of just leaving a comment telling me that my arguments are nonsense how about you actually engage the arguments and tell me what about them is nonsense.
@@michaelpeterson6174 this is too good. You really think that Mormons have good reasons for their faith? First of all if they had good reasons then they wouldn’t need faith. The only things that require faith are scams and bad salesmen. Second of all, anyone who reads the fair website, Book of Mormon central, or even watches this channel knows that apologists are desperately grasping at straws. People are leaving the church in droves due to the lack of good reasons to believe. Finally to answer your question I usually come here to start conversations. Edit: you also claim I am baiting people and having people “fall for my deceit”. Please tell me one thing I’ve said that’s not true.
@@dukeofsahib4967 Ah, my friend, you candidly admit your fraud. So you say you're only out here on this channel "starting conversations" yet in the previous breath broadsiding faith among the Latter-Day Saints, trashing the church's activity levels, and issuing clairvoyant negative suppositions about the mindset of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So I state the foundational question again: What in the world are you doing out on this pro-Latter-Day Saint RU-vid channel arguing against the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and its truthfulness, and bashing and denigrating our dear Church and its members?
@@michaelpeterson6174 well we are still having a conversation are we not? Usually I can have a decent conversation with others but when it comes to people like you who call me deceitful and refuse to actually address my points then I will treat you accordingly. Again I will answer the same as last time. I’m here to start conversation because truth matters. If you actually can engage my points as opposed to just calling me deceitful then I can work with that. And again I ask you: you call me deceitful so name one thing I’ve said that’s not true.
14:33 “I’m a numbers guy” Lol Ok, go study genetics and statistics and publish your results in a peer reviewed journal. Or at the very least show your statistical analysis to your conclusion. Otherwise youre just being arrogant and deceptive.
I like Wyatt and 100% agree with his points above, but I agree the numbers guy comment was a little cringey. But the critique that he should DO MORE, or SHOW MORE, can always be made of every video or comment, even if volumes are written on the subject.
@@raulofmustachio3d Thanks for the comment. So, "doing more" is an understatement. Perhaps this guy should spend just a year or so studying and practicing statistics before making youtube video on things he obvious knows nothing. I don't think he has a clue about numbers or probability.
@@ndjarnag you may be right, but I guess we’d all just be guessing what type of analysis he’s done. At this point, he’s essentially held himself as an expert and there’s not much data to throw around and confirm either way. Again, due to the low bandwidth of RU-vid videos, these all tend to be more testimonial in nature than comprehensive, from all sides of arguments. I will say, I was impressed because I feel like I’ve independently come to some of the same conclusions he did through my many years of looking into these issue.
DUDE you are drunk with the koolaid.. Saying there are thousands of things showing the LDS is true, is just stretching the bounds of legitamacy wayyy out into space. by the way, when you turn 60, and realize what you could have become financiallly wise if you had just invested your tithe money,
In my experience, you would be worse off. God blesses us for our faithfulness and that includes our financial faithfulness. I live better on 90% of my income than 100%. God loves to bless us. God's economy is not the world's economy so your premise is entirely flawed. Pray that Heavenly Father will enlighten your heart and mind on this (and presumably many other matters as well) to your complete satisfaction. God bless you.
@@rutherglenroad8109 IM sure you believe that. Im also sure you are not the head of a financially struggling family. When my wife was young, her dad would rub aspirin on her gums for a toothache cause he couldnt afford a dentist. Children are the ones who go without cause their TBM parents would rather give their money so their church can build billion dollar temples regardless if they are really needed. Christ loved the little children, I doubt he would be pleased with the churches plans with your needed finances.
Bahah!! "Thousands" is a huge understatement. There's billions of pieces of evidences, probably much much more. You don't seem to understand what evidence is.
