Philosopher DESTROYS Atheism (15 Minute Brilliancy) 

Clever girl.

Amen! Smart young person. Kudos to her!

She got it wrong. It’s because we don’t see evidence. The truth is the theist have successfully convinced people that the starting point for analyzing our reality is “god did it” when a more honest approach is to say I don’t know, collect evidence, and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

A currency of 'Good Will' is really the only way to go. But it could be dangerous in leading toward a Mark of the Beast System. This could be really good. But this might be a reflection of a really painful truth, too. Society, thanks mostly to propagandizers through Social Media, are casting their money to the Almighty Plutocracy. Unfortunately, many people's souls are calloused to the point they won't even feed the poor. I think Temple Grandin was a genius in leading people. But she could have been even better when leading us to life working with each other. Ask, Seek, Knock, just Jesus said. The Almighty Plutocracy seems to be the 'god of this world'. Plutocracy - Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and most "-isms" all served the Plutocracy that Profited from Death. But the Plutocracy that 'Profits from Life' can really be good and holy. We don't have to 'destroy the world'. We just have to 'change our mind' and help people. Is anyone actually paying attention? We have to HELP EACH OTHER. G. K. Chesterton's Distributism Model served the family and led us to Eternal Life in Christ, much like Willie Nelson from Farm Aid. G. K. Chesterton's Distributism Model served the family and led us to Eternal Life in Christ. I hope to God someone who actually cares is listening. Just saying.

​@@DM-dk7jsshe got it exactly right. We serve a loving God. Deny the existence of your creator and accept annihilation, if you so choose. I choose to follow Jesus and persue life eternal. Jesus is the light of the world. Amen 🙏😇

Thanks my friend from across the world! ❤️✌️

I was on a similar path as you many years ago. I pray that you will continue to seek the Truth and the reality of God's Love for us will be made real to you.

The second step I suggest is reading the books of Matthew, Mark and John of the New Testament and watching the film The Case for Christ which you can find on RU-vid to understand the probable historicity of the Bible and Jesus. I've never understood how people can say the Bible is like a telephone game and none of it is provable without ever reading any of it. The first step to an educated opinion about religion is familiarization with the source material and an exploration of proof, or lack thereof, of the accuracy of the religious text. Only through this can an educated opinion be formed. Godspeed in your journey.

That's wonderful to hear. If you ever have any questions, please feel free to reach out to anyone. I'm more than happy to help.

20 years ago I thought that the idea of a invisible man in the sky was not any less dumb than a universe starting out of nothing. For the first time I realized that I was being prejudice this whole time and that I needed to drop that prejudice if I only cared about the truth, like I believed. I started reading the Holy Bible so that I could argue more effectively with my Christian friends. I thought I was going to free them from brainwashing. As I searched diligently to disprove one thing after another, I only found confirmation. When you search both sides with an open mind, one side will come out on top, every time. Out of all the people that I have asked to search the path, that did so honesty, searching for answers, I have only seen two results. 1. A belief in God or 2. Them coming to the conclusion that God is probable and they don't want to feel that way, so they stop looking. I'll paraphrase something I like. "One [...] should be able to hear about all Ways and be more and more in accord with his own.” Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure 1716

what atheist claimed that the mind that does science is the end product of a mindless unguided process? who, specifically, said this?

@@wiffleballer28I think it‘s more of a logical conclusion from atheism (materialism) than a quotation.

@@dartheli7400 I understand...but this inane form of debate is joshua2707's bread and butter, so I like to tease him a little bit. but seriously, can you demonstrate how it's a logical conclusion? and please be precise, and specific.

It's a staggeringly stupid analogy. Suppose your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, *and also had tens of thousands of years in which it had proven to work well* ?

So if there is no god, John Lennox can't trust his brain. Fair enough, let's run with it even though it is a tad simplistic Option 1) There is a god (let's grant that this is a god that designed his mind). Lennox reaches the conclusion there is a god and he is right because he can trust his brain as it is designed by the god Option 2) There is no god. John Lennox concludes there is a god, but he use his brain and it is not reliable as it is not designed by a god - so he is wrong. How does he know option 1 is the right one and not option 2?

As an atheist... I did like this statement, it makes you think.

I think such a statement fundamentally misunderstands science. Science is just an organized effort by human beings to understand reality to the best of their ability. If you don't scientifically try to make sense of reality, what other way are you going to do it that would produce reliable results? Science can get you to the moon and back. Religion can get you to donate your money to the church. Then what? Do you get eternal life? But what made you think eternal life is a reality instead of a sweet lie? How do you go about figuring that out if you don't rely on any scientific methods?

Science does not prove anything they verify things. You cannot prove anything in reality. You can only confirm things in reality. Mathematics is where things can be proved.

The problem with this is that empirical science, which is what I *think* is being referred to here, doesn't deal with formulating proofs. ORIGINAL: The problem with this is that science doesn't deal with proofs. Edited to avoid pointless bike-shedding.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that no system is exempt of contradiction, hence, in any system, there are always statements that can't be proven !

Wonderful!!! Thank you for sharing! God is so good! ❤️

Yeah arturs,it's totally absurd to not believe in something that you can't see ,hear or feel. 😅

​@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdomgod is so good that he created evil..... God is so good that he is a genocidal maniac......

​@@blackatheistmillionaire1636I have tasted and see that the lord is good..

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Just not so much in Gaza and Yemen and Ukraine! Lovely in your comfortable house though, I'm so pleased for you.

You are 2000 years too late! He's dead.

​​@@slik00silk84 Christ is risen ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xq5kHkoj904.html

@@slik00silk84 He Has Risen!

@@slik00silk84You tuned out too early. Everyone who told you of His crucifixion recounts His resurrection just a few words later. Reading is fundamental!

​@@slik00silk84Jesus Lives! ✝️

didn't go over many people's heads...it's just that it's only funny to people with the equivalent of a 12-year-old sense of humor.

@@wiffleballer28well it was funny to me. I laughed.

Yeah, he was too "moral" to utter the 4th 'F', but it did sound like only a few got it.

It's been around forever. Most ppl prob alrdy heard it.

​@@DizernerI was also surprised at the audience's reaction. They can't be very up on these lines of reasoning. Our brains and sensory apparatus work in most ordinary environments as you might expect if they were designed or if they evolved somehow. But the higher functions would have to be emergent phenomenon, and that seems wildly improbable under an evolutionary process. Why don't we have any close mental competitors in the animal kingdom? It seems more reasonable that we were designed for a higher purpose. Finally, the evolutionary emergence of any type of rationality requires an ordered and lawful environment. Isn't that convenient?

Apologist are just trying to retain their flock and they are fake philosophers.

Yeah he’s calling them out in nearly every video. Too bad he doesn’t debate anyone. Big difference between stealing other people’s content on social media and making it your own…and debating.

@@DM-dk7js Yep. Hope you keep watching!

What’s the difference between the (old?) atheists and the new atheists crowd?

@@DM-dk7js he isn't stealing anyone's content, he is unpacking it, adding his own imput and interpretation. All debates, books, lectures etc of any interest have been discussed and debated throughout time, that is why they were started in the first place. This young man is doing a great job, God bless him.

@@Andrew-pp2qlnew atheists tend to be more vocal and have Boobtube channels.

More likely born into the right religion....... What a coincidence, right?

the true religion is the one you atheists hate the most.

I'm sure you arrived at that number scientifically

The choice remains binary: transcendence vs materialism.

And of those religions, how many of them have gods which exist apart from/outside the universe? (hint: it's in the single digits)

At this point in his career and life… He has dedicated his entire life to biology after all and hasn’t found god. It’d take a lot of evidence to overcome a lifetime of evidence to the contrary.

What a closed-minded fool to make that statement. And they call us close-minded... They tried painting us into that box until the science they so desperately love started turning on them hard the past 20 years or so. The more science learns, the more it proves God. Keep up the good work science. LOL

​​@@DM-dk7jsand what evidence is that? You still haven't found one missing link to prove one animal type became another.

@@Lance.West4 The more science discovers, the more people turn away from religion. You are in denial. There are more atheists in the world today than at any other time in history.

Maybe the Lord hardens his heart

There is no objective morality. Morality is subjective, that's why different societies have different moralities and how moralities can change over time. If we had an objective biblical morality like described in the bible we'd still have slaves, stone homosexual men to death, as well as women whom weren't virgins on their wedding night!

But isn't it, in fact, up to human subjectivity? This seems to either bedevil or terrify theists. It's like they can only imagine two possibilities. Either there's a God and all morality comes from Him, or there is not God in which case it's a huge free-for-all with everyone murdering, raping, and plundering. But honestly, isn't that kind of absurd on the face of it? Isn't there a perfectly reasonable in-between where humans try to figure out morality on their own and sometimes make a mess of it but usually do pretty well? Also--anyone who has read the Old Testament can hardly come away thinking that morality that supposedly comes from God isn't sometimes pretty awful!

There is absolutely not objectivity to human morality. Compare, for example, the morality of the Jain religion with the morality of any religion which allows the consumption of meat.

@@PastPresented So you don't think that killing someone is objectively wrong? It is just a matter of opinion? Be honest with yourself.

@@PastPresented "There is absolutely not objectivity to human morality. Compare, for example, the morality of the Jain religion with the morality of any religion which allows the consumption of meat." Right. Morality isn't objective. What makes you think that's a problem, though?

Ironically I left a comment on that guy’s page before, challenging him to bring his worldviews to a debate with WLC or so, to hear the problems with his argument and here we are. This was definitely something I wanted to see.

@@sinclairj7492 I mean, fair enough. That said, these new atheists are kind of wasting people’s time with their silly, weak arguments.

So the entire scholarly community is wrong? Name one scientific body that supports the claim that a supernatural force created the universe.

@@drstevej2527 😂😂😂

Demanding that a field of knowledge, that only investigates natural phenomena (i.e science) to try and prove a supernatural phenomena, as is absurdly ridiculous as using a thermometer to measure weight. God bless.

No he doesn’t have great clips

I would advise to just start with what you feel passionate about, and through your quality work people will find you. From my experience when I focus on people seeing content I always fall short, because my focus is in the wrong area. Do what you love and what is called to you, and hopefully reaching people is one of the byproducts of that

Just take clips of famous people speaking, then add like 30seconds of your own commentary to them.

Bible verses. Share these... Cool stuff like Romans 12:21. Check this out.... 12 and 21 are opposites right? Check this out, so is the verse. "Do not repay evil for evil but repay evil with good" Repaying evil with good is a direct opposite. God's Word has hidden codes. Look up Chuck Missler. There's a treasure trove. There's more. Let's go!!!! Hit me up anytime.

@@Reloading20lol

Don’t forget fish hats

Do you believe we have been visited by extraterrestrial life?

Go for it. Humor us.

The atheist will object because you need some connection between your imagination and the real world if you think that others should agree with your ideas about what is real and what isn't real.

@@Andrew-pp2ql Hi Andrew. I think what people are experiencing are what use to be called angels...either demonic or angelic, I cannot say. Spiritual beings makes as much sense and space aliens

God is All Knowing. He knew prior to Creation exactly who reject Him and end up in Hell. How is God being morally good to those People to create them and bring them into existence ?

😂

Right. So you don't agree with many of the things he said, but WAS HE RIGHT? Truth doesn't depend on whether or not you agree. I'm broke but I don't agree with that, yet my bank account says otherwise. See how that works?

@@jenniva2005 I avoid defending positions others thrust upon me. I've seen a few clips of this guy now and the core of his arguements seem to be logical fallacies, a strawman in this case. He characterises atheism as a set of beliefs he can argue against rather than a complete view. I will point out why I find his points fallacious: In characterising naturalism he says "matter is all the reality there is", but there are various forces and properties of matter that also comprise reality. His points on determinism are mostly true, however he takes it to the extreme by saying one has no control over oneself. This is a 'reductio ad absurdum' which he segues into a 'poisoning of the well'. I will point out that it seems an error to suggest just a collection of nerve cells aren't able to perform complex tasks humans do in a time when artificial intelligence, something even less complex than the human brain, is becoming ever more capable. Sciencetism isn't the same thing as science, and science shouldn't be viewed as a noun - a set of beliefs - but a process. The process and standards for evidence differs depending on the field. People of "scientism" will blindly follow insufficient data from studies, and those people aren't atheists in my view. There is a difference between believing and knowing. He then proceeds to make the appeal to the majority: "Fundimentally, naturalism undermines all the things that we have understood..." He talks of the "four Ms" being under threat by naturalism, but the psychology of an individual - their morality, modality, meaning, and mental - still exists in the way a brain is constructed and of the brains of people around them. Someone who actually beleives in naturalism wouldn't deny this, this is just an appeal to morality fallacy - because we value these things we must treat them as fundimental truths. He then makes appeals to authority fallacies, taking words from scientists who he thinks an atheist would respect in order to sway them rather than any evidence for a God - "a maximally great, worship-worthy being". There so also the implication of "shifting of the goalposts" in wanting to define whatever initiated the Big Bang as 'God' regardless of it being a being as he described. All this in only the first few minutes. While, of course, the 'fallacy fallacy' points out that just because something is a fallacious argument doesn't mean it is false, it also doesn't mean it is true. He has no reason beyond an act of faith. He's free to have that, I only take issue when people go against their faith and try to justify their beliefs in a 'bad faith' way - he's not arguing from a point of his own reasoning for belief but in a matter to try and manipulate others. I have a pity for this sort of person as I do with the communists and other radical Leftists I've argued with - the fact they can only argue their point of view in the form of fallacies implies they were convinced of these positions through fallacy. I imagine them to be young and inexperienced, having fallen victim to manipulation that they couldn't comprehend.

Not trying to start an argument but what argument do you see as the strongest and why? Thanks.

@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 I’m commenting so I can see this too. :)

@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 It's a good question. R.R. or Stephen Woodford begins his rebuttal at 19:00 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_PM3TM35fdA.html But it depends on which route you are looking to dispute. The argument from naturalism is only for deism not for any one religion, Paul Copan is trying to smuggle in theism. Naturalism does fail at a certain point but we know it's because the universe is governed by probability and arises from the quantum realm. The big bang is a change of the state of the universe in cosmology, not a creation, so that is also being smuggled in. We do not know what exists prior, we don't know if the universe is infinite, if mind is an emergent property and we happen to just be in a universe that consciousness is able to form. All questions we don't know. We don't know if it's possible for a mind to exist as the fundament of reality or even outside of a physical brain, idealism is something debated in philosophy. We have minds that comprehend the macroscopic world because of billions of years of evolution. It doesn't mean some super-mind gives us consciousness. Copan finds reality suitable for us so assumes it was created for us. That is just an idea. He is quoting no cosmologist in his big bang point. You cannot get to theism from the anti-naturalism argument. Woodford gives reasons why naturalism looks to be true based on evidence. But it can only get you to deism. Atheism is a lack of belief in current models of God, theistic descriptions. It doesn't say deism is false. Does this naturalism argument prove Islam or Hinduism is true? No, and it's the same for all religions. That argument is about deism, the idea of a God who exists but isn't interacting with us. If you try to argue a specific religion than it's a historical argument and a completely different thing. If Idealsim is true, everything is mind, than Adviata Vendanta, a type of Hinduism is far more accurate because that is it's core principal. Brahman is pure consciousness and everything is a manifestation of that. But I don't see any evidence that shows that to be correct. Paul Davies believes there might be a God, but he doesn't know, as he states in God and the New Physics and Physics and the Mind of God.

@batman - what is also simple is that you have no evidence for your extraordinary claims. Your comment is just your personal opinion this week based on ....zero. And btw your God, as fully explained in the Bible, does not give you free will. Your free will is highly conditional. Watch this video from a Bible expert to learn what a fraud Biblical Free will is ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vFfh1cSZ7Zc.html

Which god and how do you know?

What proof is there if this god. What is the more reasonable conclusion? That a hidden supreme being is the source or that we arrived at this point through natural processes? One of those conclusions is falsifiable, one isn't.

@@johnelliott5859 What is "falsifiable"? You may want to look into Conscious Density, which means Conscious Frequency. We clearly understand now that your "consciousness" is not formed in your brain. If you understand conscious frequency, then the big picture starts to come together. Conscious forms the particle property of the gravity wave, which is actually just energy, into what we perceive as "reality". There are no particles at all however, no "matter" at all. EVERYTHING is energy, and there was no beginning. In fact, you are god, not God, but an integral part of the whole, which is One. With this understanding, you get dark energy, dark matter, and black holes are simple. If you want to find God, you have to go inward, not outward. As deceptive as religion is, that concept is at least legitimate. So the quest is yours, not mine:)

@@batmandeltaforce How many Hz is the conscious frequency? How can I "tune in"?

Rapid claims and assertions without rebuttal.

A 5 year old can make rapid claims and assertions to sound reasonable.

@@cipherklosenuf9242 What would be the rebuttal? Trying to look thru the comments from drive-by atheists in this thread to offer SOMETHING but I’ve already hit a “magic sky man” atheistic bleat so it ain’t looking good for atheists 😂

You’ll find none of that in this video.

@@CiscoWes Hi Cisco…thanks for the challenging reply. What would be the rebuttal? It goes by so fast and the rebuttal isn’t included on this channel. It presents criticism of flaws in naturalism and materialism and rational thinking. Very well …philosophical debate is like that. So he assesses the tools of reasoning…this hammer is too small …this nail is bent… there’s a knot in the board. Very well. But then he turns to theism! And voila Problem solved! For example at about 10:30…”we’re made in the image of a rational God”. That’s an assertion offered as if there’s nothing to unpack there. But Unpacking that phrase alone results in it being nothing…just an assertion. Saying “Humans are woven in the likeness of supernatural beings.” serves just as well and it’s asserting a science fiction/fantasy which functions no better than honestly saying “we don’t know”. “so it ain’t looking good for atheists” I agree…kinda … Saying “There is a god” is nonsense… And saying “There is no god” is also nonsense. That’s why an agnostic response is technically more accurate… We simply have no way to determine that an eternal being exists and made humans in its image. We may as nonsensically say eternal beings weave us…or whatever. If we did have conclusive evidence of eternal weavers then faith is dead and the eternal beings become known as natural phenomenon. The agnostic-atheist is aware that one can’t carte blanche dismiss an unknowable race of invisible beings existing before the expansion of our singularity. Speculation about such eternal beings is entirely consistent with what one may observe as cultural creation continuing today in efforts of theists to justify their supernatural theological systems. Theology is no more useful than science fiction/fantasy as a tool of science or reasoning. I like science fiction and religion and both have cultural significance..literature and imagination and personal inspiration and creative insight… all very well…profound from a personal viewpoint. Very well. Have you noticed that one often finds remarkable leaps from …there Must be a creator … to landing on a version of Christianity as being true! What’s mistaken about an agnostic response to: “Humans are woven in the likeness of supernatural beings”? Well, We can’t know this objectively….but that’s almost certainly not real …right? Do you believe in an eternal supernatural race of divine weavers? If not are you being irrational? I don’t think concluding you’re being irrational is a fair assessment. Yet theism permits assertions precisely like that when presented in profound words and cultural conventions. Millions of theists want their religion to be demonstrated to be conclusively right and apologists offer what theists want to hear. How am I mistaken?

I suffer from Alzheimers too. 😉

I decided to check my own subscription and it was off… I vividly remember subscribing around a week ago

He provides the full video for you to see.

Their proposed established theory of the universe, the Big Bang, is slowly being rejected because the predictions from it are constantly failing. Much of modern cosmology comes across as pure fiction. Dark matter, dark energy, string theory. But hey, they got it all figured out, those atheist scientists.

Without the moon, none of us would be here. Meditate on that today

The fine tuned argument takes a comprehensive view of those theories and reaches its conclusion through deductive reasoning. The following assertions are rational and maintain logical continuity.

​@@ViperveteranReally? Which theories?

@@Viperveteran but the fine tuning argument starts with the assumption that these factors can be different, we don’t know if the gravitational constant can be different, we don’t know if the universe could have started with high entropy, it could be impossible for these things to be different, and then there’s the multiverse theory which throws the fine tuning arguments out of the water since if there’s infinite universes then there has to be one that has perfect conditions no matter how low the chance is. The only way the fine tuning argument can work is if we know that these things can be different and we live in a reality with one singular universe that will only exist once and there will never be another universe again.

Yes also time.

Time is a property, not a thing. It's like asking "What about length?" Length doesn't physically exist, but it's a property of things that do exist.

@@flamingbeaver9414 Clocks and calendars are manmade. But man did not create time, I assure you.

@@broombromden498 Do some research on emergent spacetime. Einstein demonstrated that time is not purely conceptual as was the belief beforehand.

@@saintmalaclypse3217 Time is a property. So is God.

I’m not sure about where to find the bible in spoken form but if you haven’t read the bible yet I’d stay start with Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. These are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life.

Hey! There’s a cool channel called The Bible Project that I think you will appreciate. They have a lot of videos giving thoughtful commentary & context on the Bible.

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Thank you Brandon, I appreciate that.

@@Jack-bi8mg Thank you for the recommendation.

@PiniMoo - you mean that you remember before you went insane. And you still haven't read the Bible

@peterhughes8699 Instead of using slurs to justify your way of thinking I would use rational thought and evidence. It's not insane to believe in something with 5000+ manuscripts with alterations as little as the word "the". But what i find insane is you continue to believe that matter magically condensed into one single point and magically created itself from nothing. You are believing magic my friend

Pini,seek help my friend.....and leave that religion alone.

@@PiniMoothat’s what they basically believe 😂

Jaymo, atheism is a belief! Agnosticism is lack of belief in God. It is a belief that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it is a knowledge claim: "There is no God." Antony Flew defined atheism as “rejection of belief in God.” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967): an “atheist maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition.” Atheist philosopher, Julian Baggini, defines atheism as “the belief that there is no God or gods.” Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from agnosticism. Atheism makes the knowledge claim that God does not exist. Thus, this stance is in just as much need of justification as the theist’s claim, "God exists." Both bear the burden of proof since both make knowledge claims.

@@Paul_CopanWhat you’re thinking about is actually hard atheism vs soft atheism. Soft atheism rejects the claim made by theists that there is a god. Hard atheism makes the positive claim that there is no god. Almost all atheists are soft atheists. Thats because god is a claim which cannot be proven false, which is a sign of the weakness of a position. Agnosticism is the position that the supernatural is not known, and can probably never be known. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to either believe or disbelieve in god.

@@Paul_Copan Anthony flew agrees with me. No one would ever claim "god doesn't exist" until someone makes the claim that "god does exist". Atheism is not a claim, but a response to a claim. If no one ever claimed a god exists, I would never claim god doesn't exist. As for Julian Baggini, I haven't read any of his books and I would be interested to see the context of this quote. All I can really say here is that I disagree with the quote without context. While atheists can make claims, atheism doesn't make any claims at all.

Bravo!

So you think philosophy…”honest” philosophy supports theism?

@@therick363 , yep. YEARS of reading philosophy brought me to the same conclusions as Paul Copan. And of course, we have philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and David Wood, too.

@@mysotiras21 philosophy is not evidence for your imaginary friend.

@@JustMe-wo8lg , I NEVER claimed that philosophy provided "evidence" for God, so yours is a strawman argument. I simply pointed out that philosophy does NOT support atheism, for the many reasons that Paul Copan pointed out in this video, and more besides. Did you even bother to WATCH this video? You sound very touchy and hostile, by the way. Must feel threatened by theists. Pretty sad.

@@JustMe-wo8lg , btw, please PROVE that God is imaginary. Show me YOUR evidence. I won't hold my breath, waiting.

@TeI.eg.ram-RealDailyDose_d I don't even know what means. Enlighten me.

Alright

Creation isn't a joke. Even if you believe that the circumstances aren't supernatural.

yeah.. no, loki is too weak to be that god, zeus too, be rational please

Maybe try a god that exists independently of the universe since that's they type of god the argument in the intro is describing. In essence you have 3 major choices

What are the LIES and Unbiblical teachings and doctrines of the enemies of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - "Trinity", "hellfire", "Armageddon", "afterlife", "immortality of the souls", "rapture", and "reincarnation" What is ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4? ANSWER - The loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward for all persons on earth who honor and obey Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Master and Heavenly King and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" written in Luke 4:43 and John 11: 25, 26. What is the "RESURRECTION of the DEAD"? ANSWER - The Creator's guarantee that all the lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.

@@jaflenbond7854copy paste spam

@@therick363 hahahaha, you are obviously a hater and mocker of Jesus Christ. What is the worth, value, and importance of the BIBLE? ANSWER - The BIBLE is the only book in the world being used by the Creator to expose the haters and mockers of Jesus Christ. Who are the haters and mockers of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - All Atheists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions who trick and deceive their own families and neighbors to reject the BIBLICAL authority and teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" and believe instead their LIES and UNBIBLICAL teachings about "Armageddon", "Trinity", "afterlife", "hellfire", "reincarnation", "immortality of the souls", and "rapture". What is the Creator's favor and reward for believers of Jesus Christ's authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" that were written and recorded in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26? ANSWER - ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful Earth without liars, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8. How will human beings live and exist on earth forever if they just die and become worthless dusts on earth? ANSWER - Arrogant, cruel, merciless, and hateful persons and all LIARS and spreaders of lies and deceits will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth forever after their natural deaths while all the lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will definitely be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.

@@jaflenbond7854not at all. But I get you need to pull dishonest moves. You do copy and paste over and over. Learn to have a conversation

​@@therick363All Atheists and fanatics of all Christian and non- Christian Religions are - 1. NOT worshippers of the Creator 2. NOT Followers of Jesus Christ All Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions who believe their own LIES and UNBIBLICAL teachings and doctrines about "Armageddon", "Trinity", "afterlife", "hellfire", "reincarnation", "immortality of the souls", and "rapture" will never be glorified in their make-believe and fairy tale Heaven nor tortured for eternity in their fictitious and invented Hell but just turn into worthless dusts on earth forever after their deaths. Worshippers of the Creator and Followers of Jesus Christ are NOT Atheists and members of any Christian and non-Christian Religion in the world. The loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward for his worshippers and Followers of his Christ is ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death. The "RESURRECTION of the DEAD" is the Creator's guarantee that all the lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.

He's living rent free in your head 😂

those google extensions for seeing dislikes are super inaccurate, btw. just letting you know

@@auspicions The inaccuracy is probably because of some kind of server delay in collecting data, etc. Not something that skew the data entirely.

this is so sad lol

I think it's also telling that he only did it in his old age, which is commonly when peoples mental faculties tend to decline.

​@@tardigrade8019are you calling one of atheists finest a declining moron

@@tardigrade8019 i suppose that's possible, but that didn't seem like the case. He seemed fairly sharp.

Old age is where judgement is strongest.. only the other facilities take a hit.

@@tgenovyou’d have a point if you had evidence god exists. But until then, atheism is by default true. Just like someone charged for murder is innocent until proven guilty.

"Today's 'science', is the new RELIGION." What do you mean by this sentence?

​@81Wordsworth Our world views determine what we do and how we think. This is why people think it's ok to take humans' lives. As this man in the video pointed out, atheists also have faith in their beliefs. Evolution fits the definition of religion.

@@HSTOgaming "As this man in the video pointed out, atheists also have faith in their beliefs." If you are asking the difference between faith and belief--that's an interesting question. I would say that most atheists believe things because they have evidence for them. That's different from faith which is belief without sufficient evidence. But if you mean that at some point, we believe things for reasons other than evidence, then I'd say that's probably true. Our values probably have more to do with our emotions than our reasons. So that's something believers and atheists probably have in common. I'm not sure if tha'ts what you're saying , though. It certainly doesn't mean that atheism is based on faith. It's not.

@81Wordsworth But you admit atheists have faith? I would argue there is good scientific evidence to suggest that the world is young. That's a long conversation though

I think that all people hold beliefs and make decisions based on a number of different things and that not all of them are based on reason or evidence. I don't think that's the same thing as saying that my belief that there is no God is based on faith in the same sense of that word that a believer would say that their belief in God is based on faith--though I'm not sure that this is what you're saying. @@HSTOgaming

Who do you think would come on top?

@@blusheep2 It's hard to say but no matter who did, it would be entertaining and informative.

Well that shows how low your standards are.

@@slik00silk84What did he say that you disagree with?

​@@slik00silk84athiesm.quick to tear down others. Contributes nothing positive or productive. What a waste smh

What did he say that was brilliant? Attacking naturalism and asserting that theism provides answers is not brilliant. Apologetics still need a viable theory with testable predictions.

@@kos-mos1127 If you really want a scientist’s breakdown for the existence of God in nature check out Dr. James Tour. Since you care enough to voice an opinion, then you will probably find him interesting.

That is an example of the fallacy of an Appeal to Popularity - it must be true because lots of people agree

​@@DanzkazThat is true. Just because a lot of people think A, doesn't mean A is true. However the title of this video is "Philosopher DESTROYS Atheism" and I think it is fair to say that most philosophers are atheists. I think the title might mislead people on what Philosophy says about our Lord. I suspect this particular philosopher was a Christian before he became a Philosopher.

@@psychologicalprojectionist Out of curiosity, why would they (the study heads) just go to philosophy professors in higher academic institutions? :) It seems to me that higher education, at least right now, isn’t a great source of authority and has problems of groupthink (from previous deep dives I did on the data when I was a political junkie). Rather, as I think you already saw, the populace or authorities can be wrong while the fringe group/authority is more correct. For example, Abolition being fringe in authority groups did not stop it from being ‘correct’ according to modern sensibilities. So, maybe it is best we just go by the argument presented in the video and, if atheists offer good counters, we engage back with charity and good will. :) EDIT: That would make this title, as clickbaity as YT pushes its creators to make, fine.

​@@FuddlyDudYes, I didn't do the study, so you may have a point, but appeals to popularity/ authority are essentially the same fallacy. "Somebody said so, therefore it is true" As to "defending atheism", there are two issues. 1. Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of claims. There is nothing to defend. It is the admission of ignorance not the acceptance of knowledge. 2. I don't think anything he said is worthy of debunking. He, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, is " not even wrong". And the points he makes have been addressed by atheists over and over again. It's appeal to ignorance after appeal to ignorance. He is saying: "We don't know and they don't know, therefore it must be God" Then when you ask questions about God it is "We don't know", or "only only God knows"

Interesting but 51% of scientists believe in god😐 Philosophers don’t do anything that has to do with fact, if you watch me work on a car you don’t know how it’s designed so if you sit and look at info you know nothing those who study it do

1. Largely the same as now, only its described as the two realms of sheol (divided into good and bad). Obviously the factors that led you into which place were different (I assume more on your life weighed up overall but cant be sure as the bible only gives a few examples that are also found in the new testament (like the unlikeliness of rich men entering heaven etc) The bible also implies that the negative side of Sheol will be emptied on the day of the rapture and the saints will be resurrected and that heaven and earth will eventually merge (new jerusalem). The bible doesn't say too much else on the subject from what I can recall 2. The idea is that during the rapture all people will be judged. The wicked will be sent to hell and the good will have the sinful part of their nature removed, so by extension the world will be free of sin. Heaven but on earth etc You can find more through google as a lot of christian sites cover the subjects better than I can in a youtube comment

@@rexcatston8412 thanks for the answer

Science is open to all possible theories providing they've not been proven otherwise in some way.

Give one single demonstration... If you can, that is.

@@jessebryant9233 I'd be happy to 🙂 What would you like a demonstration of?

Please demonstrate the claim you made above...

@@jessebryant9233 what claim do you think I made? That people are bamboozled by this rabble? Look at the title of the video, do you think he's joking when he calls it that?

This is the game you atheists love to play. First you make a claim like, "...this rabble", and then you play dumb and act all confused when asked to demonstrate your claim, usually claiming that you made no claim. Also, if materialism is actually true, why do you believe that you are capable of "thinking" at all? I mean, are you a brain or do you use a brain to think?

Ridiculous statement, when so many from your camp believe that Christians need to prove his existence everyday 😂. Gaslight much?

@@JohnSmith-wu6yxwe’re just asking them to prove what they say.

If He didn't exist, there would be no need for atheists to try to disprove His existence. God just doesn't exist in a realm YOU can understand.

@@DM-dk7js You understand that this goes both ways. Right? Unfortunately, your side is behind the intellectual eight-ball, especially with evolution. The point is, people of faith have been “proving” their positions for centuries……but we are speaking to brick walls who only want to hear themselves. YOU prove your position. Your position is actually less provable and weak.

​@@DM-dk7jswhat exactly do you want us to prove when your mind is already set on not believing anything we say? You and I rely and reside in the physical realm. God resides in the spiritual realm. The two realms are mutually exclusive and are not interchangeable. You can either accept that there's a spiritual world out there that you know very little about, or continue beating an already dead horse with a stick. Physics has already provided a very good answer/clue for us.

Sounds like an advert for the bible!

Theists are unable to present evidence to justify factual claims of a god, its as simple as that.

Non-belief is brainwash. It's impossible to hold a non-belief, everyone believes in something. Athiests put their faith in disbelief. Don't believe the evil lies. It has never been a matter of evidence, it's always been a matter of perspective. God loves each and every one of his children. If he did not, would we be here? The answer is, no. 🙏🏼

@@ryngrd1there you go lying again

@@therick363 there you go again, worshipping athiesm

@@ryngrd1 shoosh. Adults are talking and you only lie.

But magic wizards that get virgins pregnant via the services of an invisible spook does, I guess?

It's just not believing in a god or gods. What's confusing about that?

Why? You are an atheist to thousands of other gods, I just rule out one more than you do,

It's not complicated: I haven't been convinced that a god exists. That's it. There is nothing to make sense of. If you have ever in your life NOT been convinced that Zeus is real, then you understand exactly what a lack of belief in a god is like. Now, if you listen to this channel, you might think that an atheist MUST also believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, or abiogenesis, but that's a falsehood only perpetuated by channels like these because it's easier to argue against ideas than it is to argue with someone who is just saying "I haven't been convinced there is a god." An atheist CAN'T be wrong about their atheism, so there's no good sound bites or clickbait for channels like these. They have to falsify what atheism is, then argue against that falsehood rather than merely provide good evidence for a god.

Because you have been brain-washed!

Naturalism literally argues that all that exists is what we can sense, measure, and analyze scientifically. I get that you recognize the inherent flaws in that, but that doesn't change the fact.

@@christophertaylor9100 Naturalism does not claim that all that exists is what we can sense. Science posits dark energy and dark matter. Both are not detectable even with our best instruments.

@@christophertaylor9100 I should have specified methodological naturalism. Typically, the argument is that metaphysical naturalism or “philosophical” naturalism constitutes a truth claim about the fundamental nature of reality, while methodological naturalism does not.

To note, plenty of atheists are determinists. I'm one.

​@@pulsar22They are not detectable YET. Do you agree?

Amen! 😅

Ask Them what the first thing is. Time space and matter should be there at the same time, then we are still stuck in bassicly some kind of box. (Easier For explanation, it might be a donut) then what made the difference between a place we can and cant live? You can put stuff inside that box and take it out. This is bassicly included in what he said. It's not exactly the same. Not everyone who hears understands.

Don't blame thiests... We can't help it cause it's just the product of our natural process😂.... don't fight us.

@@wingamwila4113 I assume that is a poor attempt at humour. Natural does not mean predetermined.

Exactly.

God is nature God is reality God is the consciousness that allows you to perceive his reality. Everything that has been observed is God at work. That’s the idea I’m getting this video’s theist position.

@lithium84 Then, by THAT position, this 'God' doesn't _exist._

@@Theo_Skeptomai God is existence

@@lithium84 You obviously aren't familiar with the term 'existence'.

How could it be any funnier/absurd than the 1st 15 minutes :)

I feel I was MEANT to find your channel. ❤

What’s your email? I’ll delete it as soon as I reply. But RU-vid hates sharing emails. For whatever reason.

@@Garrett0329 You don't feel things in your heart except for maybe a health problem. The problem is in your brain! It is called a delusion!

Agreed. I’ve been an atheist for a long time and in my early years I thought it was so obvious it couldn’t be hard to convince other people of the truth. I’ve long since given up on that hope. Indoctrination is stronger than objective truths

Mate, We either don't know yet or may never know the secrets of the universe. But to say, "freewill is an illusion" or "consciousness is an illusion" is rather vapid. To me it's like saying "cars are an illusion" because you understand how one operates down to the screw and bolts. If we ever found a empty space ship in a solar system 4 light-years away thats so advanced and tech that's beyond our comprehension, I dont see a reason NOT to conclude a highly intelligent life created it. We may not know how it was created yet, but it's a pretty valid reason to come to that conclusion.

All the christian apologists I've seen in these types of debates appeal to science when explaining things like the origin of the universe so I'm not sure where you are getting the claim that theists default to magic. Maybe personal experience talking to theists? But if you are interested in the science and theism I found the book "Navigating Genesis" by Hugh Ross fascinating and you might too.

Theism can only contribute belief and no explanation? How does atheism provide any explanation for how the universe came into being? How does atheism explain the human mind, consciousness, morality etc... atheism asks us to believe it's possible to attribute creative power to matter, and yet, cannot explain how this would be possible.

@@laureelohnes4231I’ve known God for so long it’s hard for me to wrap my head around not knowing Him. It also makes me very sad that they miss out on the best relationship in the world, reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. I wish they could understand how much joy, peace, hope, encouragement, beauty and true authentic love they’re missing.

Well a hypothetical explanation of the universe coming from nothing, is better ? You are a genius my friend

@@luisguti7472 Ever seen an Aron Ra video? He and other atheists are getting fed up of having to point out that "the universe coming from nothing" violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. The energy which makes up the whole universe (including the probably much smaller spacetime which we can perceive) has always existed.

​@@PastPresented sure not , cause is not an academic , so dont get your conclusions from a youtuber ,cause remember The relationship between energy and the Big Bang, when considering the laws of thermodynamics, offers insights into why the concept of "energy causing the Big Bang" might be problematic or insufficient to explain the universe's origin. Thermodynamics, with its fundamental laws, provides a framework for understanding energy and its transformations but also imposes constraints relevant when considering the universe's inception: 1. **First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Energy Conservation)**: This law states that energy in a closed system is conserved; it cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. In the context of the Big Bang, this implies that the total amount of energy in the universe should remain constant from the moment of the Big Bang onwards. However, this law by itself doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of that initial energy or how it could have "caused" the Big Bang, as it presupposes the existence of energy without explaining its origin. 2. **Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Increasing Entropy)**: This law suggests that entropy, or disorder in a system, tends to increase over time in closed systems. Regarding the early universe, this suggests that the universe's initial state right after the Big Bang was one of low entropy, highly ordered in a very specific way, which allows for the formation of complex structures as the universe expands and cools. The second law does not explain how this initial low-entropy state came about; instead, it highlights that any process preceding the Big Bang that established these initial conditions remains a mystery. 3. **Thermodynamics and the Big Bang's Cause**: The laws of thermodynamics, especially when applied to the universe as a whole, do not directly address the causation of the Big Bang. While these laws govern how energy behaves within the universe, including its conservation and the directional flow towards higher entropy states, they don't provide mechanisms for the creation of the universe itself. The initiation of the Big Bang-and whether it can be attributed to energy-touches upon questions that straddle the boundary between physics and metaphysics, including the nature of time and existence before the Big Bang, concepts that are not fully encapsulated by the thermodynamic laws as we currently understand them and dont forget even energy came into existence ..

Sure not cause that guy is not an academic , dont get conclusions from youtubers, and remember First Law of Thermodynamics law of Energy Conservation, This law states that energy in a closed system is conserved; it cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. In the context of the Big Bang, this implies that the total amount of energy in the universe should remain constant from the moment of the Big Bang onwards. However, this law by itself doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of that initial energy or how it could have "caused" the Big Bang, as it presupposes the existence of energy without explaining its origin. Secondone law of Increasing Entropy This law suggests that entropy, or disorder in a system, tends to increase over time in closed systems. Regarding the early universe, this suggests that the universe's initial state right after the Big Bang was one of low entropy, highly ordered in a very specific way, which allows for the formation of complex structures as the universe expands and cools. The second law does not explain how this initial low-entropy state came about; instead, it highlights that any process preceding the Big Bang that established these initial conditions remains a mistery for sciense Thermodynamics and the Big Bang's Cause: The laws of thermodynamics, especially when applied to the universe as a whole, do not directly address the causation of the Big Bang. While these laws govern how energy behaves within the universe, including its conservation and the directional flow towards higher entropy states, they don't provide mechanisms for the creation of the universe itself. The initiation of the Big Bang-and whether it can be attributed to energy-touches upon questions that straddle the boundary between physics and metaphysics, including the nature of time and existence before the Big Bang, concepts that are not fully encapsulated by the thermodynamic laws as we currently understand them, finally even energy began to exist.

Yes, a whole lot better than absolutely everything came about all by itself without any outside help.

How did you determine this 'God' is a reality?

_God is stunningly, amazingly good. Of that there is no doubt._ Look at the world around you, look at the universe, do those look like th eproduct of an all-powerful, allknowing "stunningly, amazingly good" entity? Of course, you will then blame it all on us and "sin" - but if humans have a sinful nature, it can only be because your god made us that way. Every day thousands of children die from diseases, starvation or abuse. Your god has th epower to stop that, but does not. He is, therefore, evil. Evil is not merely causing suffering. It is failing to prevent it despite having the power to do so.

LOL.....have you read the bible?

@@JustMe-wo8lg Apparently he hasn't bothered to read the OT.

@@JustMe-wo8lg I have, many times. And in the Bible I read this: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. That means God loves YOU enough to send His Son to die in YOUR place, so that YOU could have Life. 🙂

If you gave me an example of a fulfilled prophesy, that would count for a lot. But the times that I've heard Christians give examples, they've been flimsy or ambiguous. If you could find somewhere in scriptures that said, "Buy stock in Microsoft in the late 90s because that company is going to be hugely successful," then you'd make a believer out of me.

@@81Wordsworth Hi Wordsworth. I do want to challenge your standard for fulfilled prophecy for a moment. Although I understand your zeal for clarity I think we fall into a greater trap if our standard for fulfilled prophecy is to what you asked for. For example, if I said in 2136 in the country of Cabarduke (not a real country right now lol) is going to have a leader who will love to wear green sweaters and will live by the motto “Cheese is the only food one needs to eat” and as the centuries went along this came to pass. The reason this shouldn’t mean much to you is because the specificity of the prophecy allows for conspiracy. People could work to ensure my specific prophecy came to pass and therefore call me a prophet and you would be right to question it. However, what you want with Jesus is for prophecy in the Bible to say “hundreds of years from now there will be a person named Jesus of Nazareth who will claim to be the Son of God and die on the cross by the Romans for the sins of the world and rise again from the dead” if there was a scripture that said this, we would be right to claim there may have been a conspiracy to fulfill it based on the specifics it presents. Biblical prophecy is better because it isn’t specific enough for conspiracy but still clearly lays out the plan for Christ to show He is the fulfillment of Gods plan. He loves you and wants you to know Him. I can gladly show you some prophecies in the Bible that point to Jesus if you are interested. Keep your heart open and you will find freedom my friend. God bless!

Fulfilled prophecy…very well. Example please.

@@81Wordsworth Psalm 22 was written by King David about 1000 BC and starts with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" and goes into detail about being tormented and scorned by the people. David was a king and although he was flawed, it is said he was close with God "And from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power." ( 1 Sam 16:13) (talking about the anointing of David by Samuel.) What grabs my attention is the torments described in verses 12-18. Particularly "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me. My mouth is dried up like a potsherd and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth." These are all identifiable as sensations and medical processes which happen as a result of crucifixion. It gets better: "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment." The term "Dogs" refers to gentiles, the "pack of villains" are the criminals crucified with Jesus on either side of him, "they pierce my hands and my feet." really seals the deal that this is crucifixion. "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment." This is exactly what happened following Jesus' death. This goes beyond David writing some kind of poem about his pain. David is describing multiple factors of crucifixion without ever seeing one. Why do I know he hasn't seen a crucifixion? Because it hadn't yet been invented. David writes at the beginning of the Psalm "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" this is exactly what it is recorded that Jesus said on the cross, among other things. There's so much more prophetic symbolism in this Psalm related to Jesus' death and his role as messiah that I encourage you to research that a RU-vid comment cant do justice. I personally found this video to be really insightful when I was first researching this Psalm: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L399PTEHVGs.html I'm a very new Christian (about 4 weeks in the faith) and after I had looked at the historical evidence for the Resurrection, I stumbled upon this Psalm. This struck me and led me to welcome God into my heart. If this at all makes you more open to the idea that there's something special to be found in the bible, I think you should genuinely pray, even if you have no faith, to ask God to reveal the truth to you and to pierce and soften your heart to his presence, to give you ears to hear him and humility and wisdom to understand. This is what I did and he answered. Keep seeking the truth, don't wait for it to come to you in news or RU-vid feed like I have done for too much of my life. Be more proactive. If at first you aren't satisfied, continue seeking. Seek and you shall find.

@@81Wordsworth Jeremiah told me to invest in DJT media. It gained 38% the next day😎

Well stated! Please keep posting. We all need to hear rational voices such as yours. Peace.

Have you got links to those videos/articles that punch holes in the arguments you listed? Would be interested to digest…

Atheism not absolutely not just the rejection of a claim. Agnostics don't believe. Atheists believe not. The major thinkers that founded the modern atheist movement clearly claimed that atheism is a religion. The major atheist organizations claimed atheism as a religion historically and argued as such in the high courts of Westen countries. It was the atheists that fought to see atheism officially recognized as a religion in the US Supreme Court. Atheists nowadays often simply don't have the gall to put themselves in a position to be held to a burden of proof.

@@Danzkaz I'd rather just suggest some names for suggested listening. I can't recall the specific videos that I found most compelling but I'm sure you'll be able to find some. There is a debate between Sam Harris and William Craig which is a brilliant watch, they're both extremely articulate and well researched individuals - a clash of titans. Matt Dillahunty is an expert in logic and reason and is a former Southern Baptist pastor. Alex O'Connor is fantastic. Drew from a channel called "genetically modified skeptic" has a video which is a fun tier list of arguments for the existence of God where he deconstructs the ideas and ranks them by "strength". I prefer not to watch people like Richard Dawkins because he just hates on religion which I don't find very useful. I hope that helped

I agree with your argument that atheism is not destroyed as it is a negative claim... However, I don't find that to be consequential beyond mere semantics. By titling this video about atheism being "destroyed," he's basically saying that very strong claims for theism are being presented. I used the word claim very intentionally as I recognize that scientific proof was not provided, nor am I sure it ever will be (though Lee Strobel makes an attempt at it in his "Case for Miracles," including a study done by Candy Gunther Brown - researcher and professor at Indiana University - which strongly suggests with empirical evidence that prayer results in improved health). My issue, though, is the insistence upon scientific proof to be the end all be all determiner of God's existence. Does this requirement apply to the existence for George Washington or Confucius? I understand the "extraordinary claims" argument, but conversely, is there a better explanation for all the arguments presented here or for the spread of Christianity from a backwoods Rabbi who sided with the nobody's of his society and preached nonviolence until he was executed in the most humiliating and excruciating way possible? Is there one specific evidence I can point to that proves God's existence? No. But does inductive reasoning (which is certainly strong enough to sustain each and every one of our daily lives) of the many evidences provided here and elsewhere make it highly probable that there is a supreme mind? Yes, yes it does. The Bible says that God uses foolish things to confound the wise. Why? So that salvation depends on faith. Why should it depend on faith? Because He either gives salvation on the basis of our faith or on the condition of our obedience. None of us could ever hope to gain heaven through our obedience, but literally anyone can choose to have faith if they choose to look at the evidences presented. So by making salvation depends on faith, he's offering heaven to way more people than who would receive it if he removed faith and required perfect obedience, which none of us can achieve. Making salvation depend on faith (thus choosing to not make Himself scientifically verifiable) is actually very loving of God.

The lord of the rings is based off the Bible. What’s your point? That the Bible is exciting? That it’s an amazing story replicated over and over again? That even atheists love the story- as long as it’s not the Bible?

@@angelamarie8634 You talk as if atheists cannot see the literary value of the Bible.

@@angelamarie8634 The point is that fiction is fiction, regardless of the source. Of course, no one is going to fear the Eye of Sauron, because it is fictional. No one should fear Satan either, as it’s also a fictional character. The point is, the Fox in the Fellowship of the Ring that talks, is clearly fictional. So are all occurrences of talking animals in the Bible. And so on and so on. I don’t see why anyone would come away from the book and think “oh wow, that totally isn’t fiction!” It’s CLEARLY meant to be a fictional creation story. Also, you haven’t read it if you think it’s exciting. 😇

@@paulbeardsley4095 my knee-jerk reaction was to disagree with you but, after thinking it over, I think you’re right. I’m certain atheists can appreciate the Bible as literature to some extent; however, literature needs to be understood in its place and time. I’ve heard many atheists talk about the Bible and it is very clear they do not understand that aspect of the work otherwise they would be entirely struck with how revolutionary its teachings were for the time they were in. I think they also need to consider the authors, humans, and how revolutionary it would be for man, uninspired by God, to write the work that speaks of a relational God who came down to us scum to save us. Possibly some atheists get it, but I would venture the vast majority don’t. And, that wasn’t my point, my point is the Bible has a story that is replicated in all stories. It is THE story. A romance with a king slaying a dragon. Of course people would like that- dare I say- love that.

@@angelamarie8634 First off, thank you for being honest, both with me and with yourself. Some of it probably is revolutionary, but I wonder, how many other books have you read from that time to compare? And some of it is undoubtedly reactionary at best. You cannot ignore what it says about keeping slaves. Why do you consider us scum? Why would God have created scum? And have you read any books that came out BEFORE the Bible?

What? Nobody ever has ever said the process of evolution results in haircuts. Bizarre…

The theists keeps his hair in a box. Just like his god its not real.

​@@SuperTreemendus😂 gave me a good chuckle, thanks

​@@Andrew-pp2qlWell he certainly needs a hairstylist to get that kind of hair. It never existed until man invented barbershops.

@@indigofenrir7236 still don’t understand sorry. Haircuts are not evolutionary driven….so no….no evolutionary process will provide you with a haircut. I will add the development of body hair is indeed an evolutionary trait that developed in our ancestors history…it’s possible we never would develop the need for hair…but we did. The irony of the original statement when considered in that light.

Simple reason. You're willing to think that your entire nervous system was not planned out in any way by anything intelligent. That is absurd and laughable. It is glaringly obvious that an intelligence designed us. You just don't want to believe because you're proud.

@@jamesemerson4102it’s glaringly obvious we are the result of natural processes You need to believe a god did it because you’re scared

You obviously didn’t watch the video. He gave arguments on a finite universe WITH A BEGINNING, stated that the Atheists hypocrisy on slashing at faith when they have a faith of their own provided the notion that with the naturalist worldview, there is no logical basis on how life can come from nonlife and points out according to science the very rationale that atheists can’t justify life has to be sustained. Watch the video and deeply dissect exactly what the person is talking about instead of swimming in the ocean of your own bias.

⁠​⁠@@I_am.Joshua__we don’t know the universe had a beginning. It seems like it did but it’s not a fact. Oh dear you pulled a god of the gaps with the whole “naturalism no logical ….”

Boy he sure hit the nail on the head right there. I'd apply that to his work first.

As long as your belief is kept to yourself and not forced on others there is no harm.

​@@kos-mos1127yep... And you telling Christians: men putting on a dress and lipstick is a woman, needs to be kept to your unrealistic selves.

@@kos-mos1127Matthew 12:30

Ryan, how do you know that?

​@@kos-mos1127If only you knew. 🙄

Absolutely, yes! “The kindness of God leads us to repentance”. Knowing God is the greatest joy in life. ❤️

Parents threaten punishment for the good of the child… hell fire is no different

I am not afraid of hell. There is no hell. I can see God's work all around me,every day.I am not bullied in any way. I just can see the creation :) I am not a religious individual.I think for myself.

i don't believe in God because i'm afraid of hell fire, i believe in hell fire because i believe in God.

Not every Christian believes in a retributive hell due to poor theology and bad translations. Christians since the very beginning have held that God will restore us in the end although it will be a very painful process of cleansing us, facing our wrongs, and departing from the evil things in this world we use to hold dearly like our false self. As a Christian Universalist, I thank God for “hell” though that’s not a biblical term.

Fair enough! But assuming that we’re all interested in Truth and understanding what we’re all doing on this third rock from the sun.. you got some real explaining to do if you’re rejecting God. And the point of this clip isn’t as much to “prove God” as it is to show how circular and viciously self refuting things become when one removes Him from the equation.

​@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom, but there's absolutely no evidence of a God, so why should someone who doesn't believe in God have to explain themselves?

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom As always I’m interested in the truth and learning about other peoples beliefs and the reason for there beliefs. That’s why even as an atheist I enjoy your channel. It’s a fun and interesting topic!

No, you're actually missing the point. He is not trying to disprove atheism, he is disproving the naturalist view as he mentioned more than 10 times "naturalists think...". Now following from that, naturalists are atheists by definition. He is disproving the views that atheists take in lack of a divine explanation for things, which generally are either naturalism or agnosticism. He is attacking and disproving those positions, not atheists in general as that wouldn't make sense. Atheists hold different views about the explanation of things, and naturalism is one of them. He is disproving that.

@@spokesmansterYou can believe in a god and also be a naturalist. You can also not believe in gods and not be a naturalist. These are two aerate claims and ideas that are not linked

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that humans like to make up supernatural stories.

what is the "top"? who is deciding what a "top" is? people invent some ideas that naturally include humans being at a "top" of their thoughts.

Theists aren't rational, it's just a pretense.

There is a lot of evidence for God. There are billions of people who have had experiences with him. You can talk to them. You can read their books. The only way science as we know it came about is because Christians wanted to study nature to learn more about God. Science, for them, was an act of worship. There are irrational people who believe in God, gods, or magic, but that's not the only people.

@@jerbganderwood8433 Which god are you referring to? I’ve spoken to many people of different religions and they all claim that their gods speak to them and want a relationship with them. Are they all correct according to you?

So what kind of magic gave birth to the universe you believe in? What gave it rules? Nothing? An eternal and impersonal something that, with no will, nor interactions, being the only existing thing, would not be able to do anything?

@2l84me8 I believe in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God who lived, died on the cross for my sins, and was raised to life after the third day. That was not my point, however. Just me believing it and no one else could indicate I am wrong. However, there are billions of people throughout the world and history who have believed in the same thing I do. That is evidence. If 20 people witness a car accident and come away with twenty different interpretations of what happened, you would not come to the conclusion that there was no car accident. Same for religion. The fact that every single group of people throughout history has some concept of a God or gods is evidence there is something there. Not nothing.

Is it reasonable to assume that certain things don't exist? No.

He's speaking of metaphysical naturalism, which is the true naturalism if naturalism is true.

@@yancooper3008 Perhaps, but the natural includes non-material things like magnetism and light that contain no mass and thus would not be considered matter but can be naturally explained. I also think Stephen Woodford made a strong case on why theism is not the better explanation. It also seems that Paul Copan wants to tie atheism to metaphysical naturalism when the reality is that people simply have good reasons to be skeptical that any Gods exist. Even though I think we only have natural explanations and will probably continue to find natural explanations doesn't mean I am closed off to new discoveries that change how I see things.

Thanks for chiming in. Please recheck: I point out in my opening statement that naturalism has three basic pillars: materialism, determinism, and scientism. I don't identify naturalism and materialism. I also quote various noted naturalists who support what I say. Yes, I do note errors in church history--just as you would presumably acknowledge atheists who don't faithfully represent your version of atheism (e.g., Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung).

@@Paul_Copan Yes, you do point out what you believe the three pillars of naturalism are. While you claim to quote various noted naturalist and believe they support what you say, I can't help wonder if you perhaps glossed over some very important details that could change how you view naturalism. Just to give you an example, I view intelligence as an emergent natural property where determinism can now vary due to this property. Without the property of intelligence, determinism is as you describe. Which is why we can distinguish between intelligent creations and natural formations. The added natural property of intelligence produces things that cannot be produced without it. You also describe a belief of matter is all there is, where we already know of things that are not matter, such as light and magnetism that contain no mass, yet still are natural properties. Even when you do a google search on the definition of naturalism, it states that it is a philosophical belief that everything arises from natural "properties" and causes because nature contains more than just matter. What we are really talking about is energy and the many different forms energy can take. Energy under naturalism, is all that there is, whether it takes the form of matter or not. Where theism fails is attempting to demonstrate the property of Intelligence, whether it be at the natural or supernatural level because we already have explanations for many things that don't require the property of intelligence and are completely deterministic. There is plenty we don't know yet and perhaps one day theism will have a case for a necessary Intelligence, though I don't know if the conversation would then turn to advanced aliens vs. Gods. As it currently stands, in terms of understanding the nuts and bolts of existence, naturalism has the upper hand. However, humans are more than just our intellect, we have emotions to contend with and that is where theism, especially tied to a religion has the upper hand. When it comes to reality, naturalism is by far the best fit and the least trouble to defend for the good, bad and the ugly. When we see bad formations, we don't have to explain the incompetence of a Designer and merely point out that is what those natural conditions produce, defects and all.

​@@scottguitar8168 Thanks for your very thoughtful response. I appreciate your serious engagement. Of course, matter is convertible to energy (e=mc2). Keep in mind too that naturalists themselves utilize this definition. Kai Nielsen: “Naturalism …is the view that anything that exists is ultimately composed of physical components.” Daniel Dennett: the “prevailing wisdom” in the academy is “materialism”-that is, “there is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology,” which can explain all phenomena. You can take up such characterizations with these kinds of naturalists! Presumably intelligence presupposes consciousness, but as I said, first you need a universe that exists; the universe, however, is finite and hasn't always existed; the universe also needs to be precisely tuned for life; but a life-permitting universe doesn't guarantee that life will emerge. It must also be a life-producing universe. It's simply not obvious that intelligence will emerge from non-intelligent matter. The existence of an intelligent creator provides a far more adequate context for finite intelligence than molecules in motion and such phenomena. Teleology is distinct from morality, and naturalists don't have difficulty using teleological language for organisms. Richard Dawkins: “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: BasicBooks, 1993), 17-18. Alfonso Ricardo and Jack W. Szostak: “Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist…. It’s virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines could have formed spontaneously as life first arose.” Alfonso Ricardo and Jack W. Szostak, “Life on Earth,” Scientific American (September 2009): 54. Stanford philosopher of science Timothy Lenoir: “Teleological [design/purposive] thinking has been steadfastly resisted by modern biology. And yet, in nearly every area of research biologists are hard pressed to find language that does not impute purposiveness to living forms.” Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), ix. Very interesting!

@tgenov Why don't I respond to the claims? The guy made a lot of different claims, with little substance, each of which would require a discussion of science and philosophy to address. Hence, Gish Gallop. I tell you what, why don't you list one of the claims made, that you believe you can personally argue, and I will address that claim. You don't even have to go into any substantial detail, you just have to list the title of the argument. Do you believe you could argue in support of any of these claims?

@tgenov This guy makes several claims about minds. Which claim are you referring to, specifically? If you can't tell me what claim you are arguing, I have little hope that you can properly argue said claim.