Prove Frank Turek Wrong! God Exists 

Cameron converted to Catholicism?

​@@Dominick7Yes, he converted back in late 2022.

@@adamstewart9052 Ty yea saw it after I posted this. Seemed obvious thats where he was going for a while.

same

Amen brother congrats!!!!

Wow dude…that’s amazing and I’m so happy for you. It’s discouraging trying to show people the truth and being shot down again and again, so hearing that somebody has come around is always a treat. Keep the faith brother, and welcome ❤

What makes you believe in God? I want to believe.. and I've been searching too long for the ideal confidence in his existence

Amazing bro!

Some of them are trolls. Just look at when they joined RU-vid. 1 Peter 5:8 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

The devil delves deap. Keep the faith brother the light of the world is shining bright. ✝ ❤🙏🙏🙏❤️

Keyboards sometimes bring out the worst in people.

​@@BigIdeaSeekerSpot on!

​@@BigIdeaSeeker I was told I was stupid by atheists for years even when being very charitable. I simply don't care what you have to say and I will continue to be rude and snarky, not because I actually get offended but because rhetoric seems to be effective for many. So sorry. Regardless of what you say I don't care. I simply don't.

Has Wallace ever done anything like that? Actually, I remember being at a conference one time where he attended a Q&A. It was a friendly audience, though. I don't know if he's ever done it with a mixed audience. Anyway, what would you ask him if you could?

JWW would be inundated with questions about whether he was a cold case detective before he became a Christian. I don’t think we will be seeing him anytime soon.

@@horridhenry9920 The questions are being vetted, though. The vetter could just allow one such question to go through and filter out the rest.

Which caller were you?❤️

@@gregeckert1660 1h37m mark

@@gregeckert1660 I was at the 1 hour 37 minute mark

@@JadDragon gotchu I think I’m comin up to you after the next caller I’m at the 1 hour 3 minute mark

@@gregeckert1660 1/3 of the way through haha

​@@haydenwalton2766nothing wrong with people earning a living

Smart yes. Confused, also yes.

From a Christian point of view, moral decision making doesn't depend on us knowing what God's hidden plans are. We are supposed to do good and avoid doing evil. God will take care of his plan. That fact that we think God MIGHT, for all we know, have some purpose in some instance of suffering does not justify us in trying to avoid that suffering. There's no need for a Christian to wring their hands over whether God means for some bad thing to happen or not before acting.

@@philochristosagreed brother, often our intervening is his plan to be a branch to reach out to those people who are suffering.

@@philochristos Fair enough. But 'do good, avoid evil' sounds a lot like many non Christian philosophies and theologies. Secondly, there remains the issue of God's plan and Satan's plan. Whatever Frank does, maybe in accord with Satan's will, given that, according to some theologies, God has unleashed Satan for now. I mean, if God planned it that Frank follow Satan for a bit, then so be it I guess.

@@rolandwatts3218 "Do good; avoid evil" is almost universal. Do you see this fact as a point against Christianity?

@@philochristos //Do you see this fact as a point against Christianity?// Not at all. I think, if Frank is to be believed, it's not worth thinking about what God thinks, for the reasons I gave.

Perhaps. But often times the question asked is really, at its heart, about the worthiness of God. Is God worthy in this manner or that… When he asks if Christianity is true, would you be a Christian… He’s really asking … assuming God is worthy, would you trust Him? Sometimes despite the aesthetic of the exchanges, a person wouldn’t trust God even if He were worthy of their trust. I think it’s more like Frank is saying, let’s cut to the chase… which conversation are we having?

​@Shark_Fishing *RESPONSE ONE* // "If Christianity is true would you be a Christian" // Lol talk about being asked to sign the contract without seeing the small print 🤭😅 Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the christian God is the only God and all the thousands of other man made are false. This still leaves me with many problems as I often struggle to ascertain the christian "worldview" with regards to several issues such as..... The trinity Is the pope the head of the church Can priests marry Birth control Sexuality Can women be ordained How to attain salvation The nature of mary Dispensationalism vrs covernantalism Freewill vrs predestination Eternal security Faith vrs works Heaven Hell Evolution Alcohol Literal or aligorical bible Divorce It's so difficult because According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025 They disagree and have different opinions with regard to all of the above that's precisely WHY they have different denominations. *ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE* All these different gods and denominations past and present offer differing morality that has nothing to do with human wellbeing but often contradict and conflict with each other on almost every issue. So my question to you is ....... Which specific denomination is it that in your SUBJECTIVE OPINION represents the "correct" OBJECTIVE Christian *WORLDVIEW* as opposed to simply the subjective worldview of individual Christians ?? 🙄🤔

@@trumpbellend6717 I have tried & tried to post my response but it keeps disappearing!

@@trumpbellend6717 I’m going to try to post in two parts & see if that does the trick- I see your point. Serving my comment, I might ask a different question firstly. In terms of God’s worthiness, ought it be defined or gauged by any insufficiency (division or otherwise) within creation? Do we ever measure that which is all-sufficient by an insufficient means? So it might be that the effort invested in sorting through the list you provided is only warranted once a person identifies such worth… But Okay - if the Christian God is who He says He is - where does that leave a person with endless denominational options- practically speaking? I would take exception to the idea that varying Christian denominations means the worship of varying gods…but I would caveat that with discernment to understand what, for example, Paul means to tell the Galatians when he says watch out for those who come with a “different gospel”…

@@trumpbellend6717 Scripture says, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord & believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”… most Christian denominations agree here & there is a triaging of sorts that follows concerning much of the list you give. Not that these matters of theology aren’t significant…for there’s much more to knowing God than being saved by Him. Scripture also says that the whole of itself is “inspired by God, useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction unto righteousness”2 Tim 3:16-17 and it also says (to the Christians) “examine yourselves whether you are in the faith… test yourselves. Or do you not know this about yourselves- that Jesus Christ lives in you!” 2 Cor 13:5 So I would say to the person who has already deemed the Christian God worthy & called upon Him… know that the mind of Christ is alive within you & with your mind surrendered to Him, go to scripture that is sufficient in these matters. Elizabeth Elliott (a Christian author who lived a remarkable life if you read about her)has said, “One does not surrender a life in an instant. That which is lifelong can only be surrendered in a lifetime.” …. If we go to scripture with honest intent & our heart submitted to it, we can be confident of not only where it lands us, but also the process. It might be that the posture of the heart along the way is more important than the landing places. After all, is that not the essence of the original question- is God worthy of our hearts?

Flim-flam Frank should know or be honest about a lot of things.

He found it so difficult to answer questions from atheists 😂

Why do you think the best possible worlds is a world with God alone? If God were all alone, then it seems like there would be all sorts of goods that would never come to fruition. Many of God's attributes would lie eternally dormant and never be expressed. So there would be goods that would never be realized. If there is any attribute of God's that his greatness consists of, then surely the expression of that attribute is a good, isn't it?

​@philochristos if god is infinitely good, then there is no more goodness to add to the world. Creation can only make the world worse.

@@anthonydesimone502 I God that doesn't create or exercise all of his great-making properties can't possibly be an infinitely good God, can he? It seems to me that if God is infinitely good, he will exercise all his great-making properties, including his creative powers, so he won't be alone.

@@philochristos If God is perfection, as is often claimed, what is better than perfection? Is it perfection to have needs and wants? How can a world with chaos and evil be better than a world with perfection?

@@horridhenry9920he is a perfect being. A room with a perfect being doesn’t automatically make it a perfect room. It still lacks a chair, a bed, a sink etc. so God doesn’t need anything more than himself, but a better world would be a world with another being to experience God’s goodness

Hello!! how do you make such monthly, I’m a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down of myself 😭 because of low finance but I still believe God

Hi that's good you have idea &share to those who deserve it that's great god bless🙏🙏

She's a licensed broker here in the states🇺🇸 and finance advisor.

After I raised up to 525k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery….Glory to God, shalom.

Can I also do it??? My life is facing lots of challenges lately

That boils down to "things are as they are and even if they were different - God" The universe in not fine-tuned for life and even if it were, you have no way of demonstrating that somehing supernatural is involved.

@@Robert-ct6bc how simple of you. In regards to demonstrating the priority of the supernatural, I don't suspect you'd be satisfied even should I bring the most excellent case. Perhaps if I find the time later I will offer one. Duty calls.

@@richiefoerster7574 What do you mean by "..demonstrating the priority of the supernatural" Priority? There is no demonstrable existence of the supernatural. It is by every meaningful definition fictional and as an add on, there is no way for anyone of demonstrating anything different...

@@Robert-ct6bc by priority I mean that which proceeds...a priori. I believe the supernatural is more natural than you may accept. I understand that much of what I would consider as touching upon the supernatural could be reduced to the natural. For example math or logic. Which is likely greater, the set of all we know or the set of all we do not know?

@@richiefoerster7574 "math or logic." are conceptual tools and none of them is in any meaningful way supernatural, neither do they have agency. This proposed supernatural whatever intelligence/God that is supposingly tinkering with nature has agency. Is there anything besides that, anything with agency that has no demonstrable correaltion with reality, that you consider as actually existent? I guess not...can you see the special pleeding fallacy here? "Which is likely greater, the set of all we know or the set of all we do not know?" problably the set of things we don'z know....either way, this has no bearing in the fact that the supernatural has in no demonstrable correaltion with reality. let me quote Sean Carroll here: "Could there be particles and forces we haven't yet discovered? Of course-there almost certainly are. But the rules of quantum field theory assure us that, if new particles and forces interacted strongly enough with the ones we know about to play any role in the behaviour of the everyday world, we would have been able to produce them in experiments. We've looked, and they're not there. Any new particles must be too heavy to be created, or too short-lived to be detected; any new forces must be too short-range to be noticed, or too feeble to push around the particles we see. Particle physics is nowhere near complete, but future discoveries in that field won't play a role in understanding human beings or their environment."

If you don’t understand Gods providence just say that

​@@jditsfights256 At least God could've provided a less dishonest apologist.

You are assuming the Supreme Psychopath has to follow some sort of rules or make some sort of sense.

@@kevinkelly2162 are you saying that God is non-logical?

@@displacegamer1379 No, just saying he does not keep any of his own rules.

@@kevinkelly2162 when you say no, is that no to the question that God is non-logical?

@user-ch8mx1vz9uI am trying to liberate docky that has the scientific proof of God that someone named George Hammond made. She is impersonating him to honor him.

@user-ch8mx1vz9u they are censoring me so I can't answer that.

@user-ch8mx1vz9u testing

Just noticed they told exactly that after kkkkk

Free will. Christians never claimed evil was gone from the world yet, in fact we claim the opposite, just that through Jesus we have an answer. God is just so He must do what is just, He can't make a rule that goes against this, as it is against HIs nature. There being another way doesn't mean that other way is right. God knowing what you will do is not Him causing you to do it. If someone is about to shoot a young mother and someone else jumps in front of her and takes the bullet, isn't that a good thing? We send ourselves to hell, so we hold the gun, Jesus takes the bullet we ourselves fire.

Assertion-after-assertion is the tax one pays for engaging with theists. Sadly we must pay that tax if we hope to free them from their apparently unjustified beliefs.

@@tonygoodkind7858 they are almost always acting in bad faith. A theist call in show for atheist is just that, them acting in bad faith while trying to shift the burden of proof.

@@tonygoodkind7858lmao 🤡

@@CJP.-pq3kr Laughing because it's true, or laughing because you feel you can make an argument for god which avoids a tax (and it's not just baseless assertion, but things like argument from ignorance too; explaining those errors are taxes we have to pay if we want to help these people realize the belief is irrational).

*receiving*

But in Frank's content, it's as if he knows the Bible. It turns out he is less able to answer an atheist or other difficult questions

1 John 5:19 - We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

_>>>>God being all-powerful means he has the ability to enact his desires._ Not true, unfortunately. The Bible is clear: God _desires_ that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2: 3,4). Since not everyone is saved, it follows that we can thwart God’s desires by _freely_ saying no to His offer of salvation. God’s omnipotence only means that He can do anything that is logically possible. He can’t _force_ anyone to _freely_ surrender to Him, any more than He can make a married bachelor or a round triangle, for such things are not things. They are just incoherent noises. Everyone’s eternal destiny is up to them.

Revelation 22:11- The angel said to John: "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy"

2 Timothy 3:12: - “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

" if there was no evil there would be no need for Jesus. God knew this before creation. So this means that the best possible world is a world where no evil exists." I don't see how that follows. It sounds like you're saying a world that has no need for Jesus is better than a world that needs him.

@@philochristos what part specifically doesn't follow?

@@displacegamer1379 I don't see how it follows that the best possible world is a world where no evil exists from the premise that if there were no evil there would be no need for Jesus and that God knew this before creation.

@@philochristos from God's perspective, which of these two worlds are more good: world 1 is a world where no evil has ever existed and does not exist. World two is a world where evil does exist and has existed in the past. Which of these two worlds are the better world?

​@@displacegamer1379 I'm all for the Socratic method in general, but it can be a bit tedious since there's no telling how much back and forth will be required to finally get to the point. Would you mind just skipping all that and explain how it follows that the best possible world is a world where no evil exists from the premise that if there were no evil there would be no need for Jesus and that God knew this before creation? Also, could you confirm or deny that you think a world that has no need for Jesus is better than a world that needs him?

He has a Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics degree from Southern Evangelical Seminary..........it's like a PhD in hot air

@user-ch8mx1vz9u You one of those folk that call anyone who believes in God creationists or …? Because I don’t know 1. Who’s arguing creationism in this video 2. Who’s a creationist in this video Therefore, relevancy? Also it’s spelled “reasoning” not “reasonnings” 😂

Totally agree! I'm the 2nd caller on this video. Just like you, I admire some theist but I've had some border line resentment towards Frank. Getting to talk with Frank was actually pretty helpful for me. When he talked like a person I found him relatable but he's just as insufferable when he goes into his prewritten stuff.

"I think Frank is one of the least charitable apologists that I am aware of, as I don't think he could steelman Leo's anti-realist position to save his life. As I see it, his pathetic "who hurt you" deflection was classless, his "you don't believe that" line was tantamount to calling Leo a liar, and his "I am not playing this game" was belittling and dismissive" While Turok is not the deepest person in philosophy, he (and Cameron) still does his job by demonstrating Leo's inconsistency from which he can never escape. The problem with trying to do an internal critique is that you need something better to offer in your own worldview. If you don't have it, then it becomes an internal criticism of your own worldview. And that's what happens to Leo. That's why Leo says he tries to project an anti-realistic moral vision while he maintains that the Holocaust is wrong. . Checkmate again! Now if you think Turock is "pathetic", deflective" and "classless" imagine what a theist might think of Dillahunty or Aron Ra or the hundreds of comments seen in these discussions.

@@nemrodx2185 You won't find me defending Dillahunty or AronRa here. 😃 It's simply false that in order to conduct a successful internal critique you have to offer or hold to a competing framework. You can in principle show a contradiction within concept A, while remaining agnostic about competing theories B and C. I am skeptical that you can steelman the moral anti realist position any better than Frank, given your statements about Leo. If you recall, Leo said the Hollocost is pro toto evil, something the Cam himself couldn't affirm! I'll give you the timestamps if you need. Can you point me to the timestamp where Leo contradicts himself within his framework?👍

@@jjccarpentry "If you recall, Leo said the Hollocost is pro toto evil" Please define: "pro toto evil"

​@nemrodx2185 You bet. If you recall, Leo defined a pro toto evil as something that's evil all things considered. He also defined evil as something that aught not occur or aught not be permitted. So, if you put those two concepts together, a pro toto evil is something that aught not be permitted, all things considered. Do you recall the moment where Cam couldn't affirm that the Hollocost was pro toto evil, and Frank had to step in to seemingly save face?

LOUIS THEROUX II :)

I’m a big anime fan if you take jujutsu Kaisen with Gojo. He has the property of infinity, which means that nobody can touch him because as soon as you get close to him, you move 5 feet away from him therefore nothing can hit him and nobody can touch him.

Frank finds it very difficult to convince an atheist He had a lot to learn about biblical history

But that doesn’t make sense? How can you say someone is completely free to do and choose to do what they want but then put limitations on what they can do?

Why do you think giving people free will is not the best thing for God to do or that it would've been better for him to have refrained from giving people free will?

@@philochristos The answer to your question is already in the original post.

_>>>A world where creatures did not have free will would have been the better possible world._ Why?

@@Mark-cd2wf If God desires a world where no evil exists. And God is all good. This will also mean through transativity that God's desires are also all good. So it follows that if a creature having free will necessarily leads to evil then it would follow that a world where creatures do not have free will would be the better world as God desires a world with no evil.

I think the better question is why did God make a world where there is enough doubt of his existence? Evolution and the Big Bang theory is a viable hypothesis. How you behave in a room filled with police officers and alone with a defenceless child or animal are two different things. That’s where free will comes in. Also the illusion that God isn’t watching us. Who is the real you? The person who believes they can get away with anything because there is no God, or the person that believes you should do the right thing Because they fear Gods wrath? Or are they just moral and ethical and do the right thing? Free will is fair and nobody should complain about the consequences, because they should only blame themselves. God is only being fair.

@user-ch8mx1vz9u oh does it 😂😂 that's funny didn't know that

That's what'll have to happen if things don't turn around, so it's very much something I've considered. Best case scenario is that we raise the funds that we need so that I can continue putting out content consistently.

​@@CapturingChristianity RU-vid content like this is already very good. Continue to have question content like this. Invite Protestant pastors who think they know the contents of the Bible 😂

Thank you brother, God bless 🙏🏻 It's good to see you around on all the different channels

But in his RU-vid content, he seems to be smart in questions at a university 😂

I fail to comprehend how any rational person could possibly think a god decided that the best way for him to be able to forgive man, for being evil & immoral as a result of breaking rules that god knew in advance that they would break when he made those rules and created evil. Was to send a version of himself down to earth then sacrifice himself to himself for a long weekend. As only this could negate the necessity to punish his creations for something their ancestors did before they knew the difference between right and wrong. 🤔 ??????? ☝️☝️ I mean just actually think about that for a minute 🤔🤔🤔

@@trumpbellend6717 right, because that's not actually the story.

@user-ch8mx1vz9u actually, the answer is that that's not the story.

@@marydetray6776 Lol why don't you tell me "the actual story" dear 🤭

@trumpbellend6717 God sent his Word to save us from death. Christ died on the cross, descended to Hades and destroyed the power it held over us through our sins, he rose from the dead bringing with him all the righteous who had passed on before him, and ascended to heaven where we can now follow. Christ didn't die to save us from God, he died to save us from the consequences of our sins, and to offer us the opportunity to have eternal life through him, Instead of death. God did not kill himself and we dont need to be saved from him, we need to be joined to him, the only source of life.

That’s not what I argued.

@@CapturingChristianity I know you didn't intend to argue that but what you actually did is dance around Leo's definitions especially relating to the word "ought" in order to avoid the actual problem Leo presented and by doing that you effectively argued that there is objective evil but there is no objective evil because God justifies it. If there is only one way that God can bring about a certain good then that way ought to be done. If that way is evil but it ought to be done, then either it isn't evil or evil ought to be done. Those are the only choices as far as I can see. Edit: and if the evil way is not the only way to bring about that good such that it ought not to be done, then there is pro-total(?) evil and Leo's second premise is true.

@@MarkPatmos Just engage with the syllogism or my take on it. Leo did a great job with his definitions. Do you think, using Leo's definitions, that the syllogism is sound? If evil is whatever God dictates evil to be, then that is not objective evil. That is evil as it is subjectively defined by God.

@@MarkPatmos No. Should that ever happen, God will impose His subjective judgment on humanity based on whatever criteria God selects at the time. That alleged future event has no bearing on alleged objective morality in this present moment. Your belief that God has held and will continue to hold a consistent set of standards still doesn't make those standards objective today or in future.

@@MarkPatmos Is it that you can't follow the syllogism and that's why you refuse to engage with it?

Skeptical theism isn’t a response to the LOGICAL problem of evil… what is this?!

I watched it and he didn’t “loose” it. He just disagreed with him and said that he’s not being honest and tried to call him out on it. Thats what you consider loosing it on someone? What do you consider a disagreement? I mean if he started to yell and curse him out and started to make call him names then I would agree.

@@faithbasedliving9391 some time has past and I realized how triggering that entire interaction was for me. “I’m sorry I’m not going to play the game anymore” was such a triggering phrase for me that I interpreted it as losing it. To me it’s an extreme conversation ender, it’s no longer disagreeing, it’s implying that your interlocutor isn’t being serious or even honest. It sounds like you think this is all a game and you’re wasting your time interacting with the other person.

I guess I can see where you’re coming from. Maybe it wasn’t the best way to handle it. I just didn’t think he completely lost it on him. I think he was exhausted and the guy wasn’t really making sense to me. Especially with his first argued saying God could have made people completely free without doing bad things. It just didn’t make sense. Either you have body autonomy or you don’t.

@@faithbasedliving9391 I think there’s a simple counter to that. Do we have free will in heaven? Does bad things exist in heaven?

@jonathanschober1032 that’s because we were tested on earth and put through purgatory to get into heaven. We have to remember that again, it’s a choice. When we choose to be eternally separated from God, that’s what brings us to hell. When we choose to be close to God, God renews us because nothing can be unclean in heaven. You are put to the test on earth and you choose to trust in Jesus. Being automatically put into heaven means you had no choice. No, bad things don’t happen in heaven. Because those who are heaven, want to be clean like Jesus. So we choose, to be placed there rather than in hell.

From my understanding, people who subscribe to libertarian free will do not believe God has a purpose in everything that happens. Some things happen as side effects in God's pursuit of some other purpose. So it doesn't seem to be the case that for every instance of suffering that it was necessary--at least not necessary in the sense that it HAD to happen in order to realize some good. The only sense in which it might be necessary is that it was necessary to allow for the possibility of it happening in order to pursue some good. This is not my point of view, by the way.

@@philochristos when I use the phrase free will, not talking about in the libertarian sense. All I mean when I say free will is the ability to choose otherwise. If there is no such thing as unnecessary suffering then that means all suffering is necessary. Under the Christian paradigm all suffering is necessary because it is required to get to the end goal that God has planned out. Given that all suffering is necessary then it entails that you did not have a free option to not choose any degree of suffering. You could not have chose to not stub your toe. You could not have chose to not get a paper cut. You are determined to have this suffering. You are determined by God's plan. God's plan is unchanging and infallible. This means you do not have free will as it regards suffering. This is your free will issue.

@@displacegamer1379 There are a few problems with what you said here. First, you said that you are not talking about libertarian free will. But then you said you are defining free will as the ability to choose otherwise. This is ambiguous. If you mean the categorical ability to do otherwise, then you are, in fact, talking about libertarian free will. If you are NOT talking about libertarian free will, then you are going to have to qualify the ability to do otherwise. For example, you might qualify it by saying something like, "You could've done otherwise if you had wanted to; therefore, you have free will." That view of free will is compatible with determinism because it means your desires can determine your choices, but there is still a qualified sense in which you could have done otherwise. Second, you said, "If there is no such thing as unnecessary suffering then that means all suffering is necessary." That fails to recognize the different senses in which suffering might be necessary, as I explained earlier. If you are using "necessity" in one sense when you say, "suffering is necessary" but a different sense when you say, "suffering is not necessary," then you're just equivocating. You need to be more precise. Third, you said, "Under the Christian paradigm all suffering is necessary because it is required to get to the end goal that God has planned out." This is not THE Christian paradigm. Christians differ with each other on this issue. As I mentioned before, under the libertarian view, not all suffering is necessary in the sense that it had to happen in order to achieve some goal God had. If it is necessary at all, it is only necessary in the sense the possibility of the evil was necessary. Fourth, you said, "Given that all suffering is necessary then it entails that you did not have a free option to not choose any degree of suffering. You could not have chose to not stub your toe. You could not have chose to not get a paper cut. You are determined to have this suffering. " Since under the libertarian view of freedom, it is not the case that all suffering is necessary in the sense that it had to happen in order for God to bring about some goal, it does not follow that every instance of suffering (e.g. a paper cut) was necessary in that same sense or that we lacked the freedom to avoid it. Fifth, you said, "You are determined by God's plan. God's plan is unchanging and infallible." This is definitely not the view of libertarians. Libertarians typically do believe that God has a grand plan for the universe, but that plan is not exhaustive. It doesn't entail the exact motion of every molecule. Libertarians explicitly deny exhaustive divine determinism. Sixth, you said, "This means you do not have free will as it regards suffering. This is your free will issue." This wouldn't even follow if it turned out that every instance of suffering WAS necessary in the sense that it had to happen in order for God to bring about some goal. Under the Molinist view (which includes libertarian freedom), God can bring about a situation in which a person makes a free choice without God determining that choice. Of course he can't bring about ANY free choice. He's limited by the counter-factual of human freedom. But he can bring about some of them, and if some of those choices involve suffering, and God means for that suffering to happen in order to accomplish some goal, then it follows that some instances of suffering may be necessary to accomplish some goal and still result from free will.

@@philochristos My definition isn't ambiguous. It's actually quite direct. If you have the option to make a choice then you have free will. It really is that simple there's no ambiguity there. Now you may be confused on that definition but you're confusion doesn't make it ambiguous. Libertarian freewill is a more specific type of freewill. It's a type of free will that is disconnected from antecedent causes. Meaning you can make the choice independent of any causal relationships. You see the distinction between my definition and libertarian Free Will? My definition allows for causal influence whereas libertarian Free Will does not allow for causal influence. That's the distinction there. So there's no problem. Ask for necessary suffering, it doesn't matter what sense it might be necessary. It's the fact that it is necessary. Not to be clear when I say necessary all I'm saying is that it could not be any other way. If it could be any other way then I would define that as unnecessary. So suffering that is necessary is suffering that had to have happened. Any suffering that did not have to happen is unnecessary suffering. I'm glad I can clear that up for you. From God's perspective, all suffering is necessary suffering. As all suffering is required to fulfill God's plan. And yes that is under the Christian paradigm. The Christian paradigm states that God has a plan. The Christian paradigm states that God is infallible. The Christian paradigm states that God is perfect. Given the Christian paradigm, suffering is necessary. I don't know why you're talking about the views of libertarians. None of my comments had anything to do with the views of libertarians. All of my comments have to do with the view of a Christian God. Now if you're saying that God's plan is not exhaustive then you're saying God is not all-knowing. If you're going to say God is not all-knowing then we're not talking about the same God. And if we're not talking about the same God then this original comment is not meant for you. And of course it does bring up a Free will issue. Given that all suffering must necessarily happen based on what I've already said, all humans must go through this required suffering. The only way for you to go through this required suffering is to have certain actions be done and be done on you. This means that you did not have a choice to not do that action or not have that action done to you. This means you did not have free will as a regards to suffering.

@@philochristos also just for convenience sake would you mind sticking to just one point at a time. If we keep talking about 500 points we're going to end up with these huge long replies that are going to become confusing to read and to respond to. Just stick to one point. We can discuss that point and when we're done with that point we can move to the next point. It just makes it easier. if you wouldn't mind.

_"Good is God and God is Good"_ *"Roll up roll up"* around and around we go on the theistic wheel of circular reasoning, a place where tautology becomes reality. I'm getting so dizzy I feel sick. 🤮 "Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared goal with regards wellbeing and the values it incorporates like empathy altruism reciprocity equality, respect ect Whether an action is "Good" is entirely relative to the desired objective / goal one is trying to achieve, the specific situation our levels of information and understanding and the range of posible alternative actions and outcomes available. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of your "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality. Would you disagree ? What outcome do YOU think we are striving for when we use the the terms "good" or "bad" if not human wellbeing

I 100% agree with you there. I will add on that the "free will defense" ignores another huge problem: one persons free will over another. If there is someone who wants to use their free will to end the life of another, then if God allows the oppressor to have free will then the victim will lose all free will because they will be dead

Free will doesn't mean you have the option to do anything it means you have freedom to choose from the choices available. If there are 3 flavours of ice cream you have free will to pick which of the three you want, there only being three doesn't take away from that. Following God or not is a choice, if you take that choice away there is no free will in that matter as you can't choose any option as no options exist.

The ability to not cause destruction of the world even in the midst of pain, suffering, or being a victim of evil is a greater good than just being innocent.

"The free will defense is so bad." The correct thing would be for you to start by saying whether or not you believe in libertarian free will? Does it exist or not?

@@JadDragon Just because you do not have all the options does not mean you have no options. If you didn't have the option to kill people, you would still have choices about what you could do

How so?

@@MarkPatmos Ok, maybe God has some issues with the way I am acting and is avoiding even appearing to me until I fix all those issues (That seems a bit petty of God?) I have a few questions though: - What are those issues? (Remember, God has not even done the bare minimum of showing me that God exists, how am I supposed to know what this God wants of me?) I could look at what humans say about God, but I'm sure you realize that that varies a lot from person to person - Is this a "salvation by works" thing? Salvation by works may be the true religion but I know a lot of modern Christians who would be upset by that - Is God going to give me a helper to help me fix my character or is it something that I have to do entirely on my own? I realize that I am not perfectly loving, but God could sure show up to help me become more loving in some way. (Assuming that God even wants me to be loving)

Your ability to make fun of things does not prove you right. Jesus is real. If a person wants to test Him and find out instead of talking to a bunch of idols that will never talk back or demons that try to deceive people and get them to hate and kill each other. Ask the Lord Jesus Christ to reveal Him self to you. If we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. God will save anyone who calls on the name of the Lord. Jesus Christ is Lord.

@user-ch8mx1vz9u So when you gonna ask Jesus to save you. I love you and God loves you extremely.

Probably the whole dishonesty thing

​@@anthonydesimone502did he lie at the Battle of Falkirk? Who did he lie to? Edward Longshanks?

@@newglof9558 They're probably just conflating the actor with the role and are disgusted with Mel Gibson for being an antisemitic jerkwad.

@@markgordon5266. Mark… you know I love ya. But I gotta say: in your worldview, you have no objective basis to say antisemitism is wrong. Maybe your subjective opinion. But nothing objective. As you know: I agree. Am Yisroel Chai. I’m just saying: You have no basis to back it up aside from opinion. It sure ain’t the consensus. To the contrary. Rock your day. 🎸

@@newglof9558 William Wallace stands 8 feet tall and shoots fireballs out his arse.

Well, infinite regress is off the table for people like Frank.

​@@MarkPatmos Why? To me, it is easier to believe in than a first moment/event.

That's how all Protestant evangelists are, they lack philosophical explanations

He has to fit everything in his prepackaged answers.

Guys, Frank was just trying to connect with the guy on a personal level. Normal people go through stuff.

@@CapturingChristianity Frank was cornered by leo who is way to smart for you guys, as you didnt understand him over and over when it was quite clear, so Frank went to one step above you are a demon and strutting off, to the who hurt you thing, why are you mad at god? Ive heard it a thousand times. I had a great childhood i have a great wife, only married once, and great kids, I don't have any major health issues, I wasn't abused blah blah blah pick one it doesn't apply as to why I don't believe and twice as much as why I don't believe anything frank says as i caught him contradicting himself at least twice in your stream alone never mind all the times he has done it before. FYI TOS means terms of service for the mod who blocked me for posting that to frank crying about his video being taken down. We all have to follow the TOS, what your mods think it is i have no idea.

@@captivedesk3168 Darkness CAN ONLY BE SCATTERED BY light. Hatred CAN ONLY BE CONQUERED BY love. -Saint John Paul II

​@captivedesk3168 atheist are always so miserable, even if atheism was true I would want no part in it.

And he simultaneously does care

@@anthonydesimone502 part of your logic !

Exactly 👍 Revelation 22:11- The angel said to John: "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy"

How do you have a relationship with a God? Worshipping is not a relationship.

For "free will." We only need the "ability to choose differently" not to have chosen differently. This is evident by the fact that Christians typically hold to God's foreknowledge. So, God could've made a world where everyone freely chose good (logically possible). Yet he chose to make a world where most will perish according to the Bible. So either that is what he wants for some reason, indicating the attributes assigned to him are wrong. Or he doesn't exist. This is presuming that people perishing is not good and that the Bible is right about most people perishing.

@@horridhenry9920. How do you have a relationship with God? Spend time with him through prayer and by reading his word · 2. Talk to God everywhere · 3. Pursue relationship with other Christians · 4. Listen to God's voice. Every word in the Bible is God Breathed.

Didn’t Satan and his followers choose evil in heaven. Heaven sounds no different from earth.

Dr Hater?

👋