Відео

Praise the one true God the alpha and omega!

Textual criticism doesn't verify the historicity of the accounts in the bible. It looks at trying to accurately get the correct original text, but makes no claim to the historical correctness of the original text. There's a lot of reason to believe, and many new testament scholars will freely admit, that there are good reasons to suspect the New Testament is not a reliable accounting of Jesus's life. In particular, it seems very clear that the gospel authors used the old testament as a source for events in Jesus's life, not writing from eyewitness accounts. In fact, the gospels pretty much explicitly state this several times when citing scripture. If you read professional academics on these things, new testament scholars, they'll tell you these documents are anonymous, and not eyewitness accounts. The arguments you are using are familiar to these professionals, and originate from popular level apologetics that are aimed at Christians to shore up their belief, but frequently vastly overstate the case and will pretty much straight up lie to you, I'm sorry to say. I recommend looking into the new testament review podcast, which is from phd new testament scholars, who will discuss research in these topics, and the hosts are also Christians, so I'm not even giving you an atheist resource! But they'll quickly dispatch the reliability of popular level apologetics texts for learning about the bible.

No one's asking your to "prove god by the laws of science", whatever that's suppose to mean. All we ask to provide a structural and sound argument to support your claim. If can't, I can't believe you. Nice special pleading you've god there. "I have a girlfriend, but she goes to another school." The god exists, but I can't provide an empirical evidence for it. We know the painting has a painter, because every single example of the painting was painted by the painter. You aren't doing the same thing with the world! You don't have any examples of gods creating the universes. You're reasoning is backwards! This claim that the god transcends the reality and can't be proved by empirical evidence just another unfalsifiable special pleading. If your god doesn't interact with reality and doesn't leave any evidence of its existence it indistinguishable from non-existing. You are willing to be wrong, but I have a question would you be willing to drop a belief that wasn't proven to be true? You didn't understand the point. This two statements "Jesus haven't sinned" and "Jesus walked on water" aren't connected. You have to provide the evidence for each claim interdependently. Jesus could walk on water because he was a fucking sorcerer and he can cast a spell "Walk on water". And this pointless argument of the Bible being faithful transmitted there for it's true is just made me laugh. My copy of the Sorcerers Stone is, i'm pretty sure, extremely close to original. This doesn't make Voldemort real! Could Jameses and John lied? How can you disprove it? You keep making more and more fallacies each video

Don't debate or engage with atheists... it's a religion for them....

The last point, i believe in the time of jesus, most poeple coulnt read and write. Therefore, the vast mojority of story telling was orally. Someone eventually wrote them down. We will never know who. All stories have a point of view and some are told from a witness, its not proof that they were. I will never understand why christians hold to, that the gospels were written by eyewitesses. We have no idea who wrote them or why. As far as did jesus exist, don't know and don't care, the question is, was he the exception to all of reality and was he god, and i can't find any evidence for that other than a few stories. That wouldn't work for any one outside of religion. I am pretty sure the pharaohs existed, not so sure they were gods. I have defently seen the bible change people and theyclaim that is proof the validity. I have seen hinduism change people as well, yet you probably don't hold that to hgh esteem. I just can't understand, why christians hold this book to be of god. ramble over

I think the problem with this challenge is that "the law" is really poorly defined. People disagree over whether the 10 commandments prohibit lies of omission, for example, and that's not getting into how there are 3 different sets of the 10 commandments in the OT. You have to realize that the Bible is a compendium of texts by different authors of different backgrounds with different worldviews and agendas. There is no singular, Biblical definition of the law. There are multiple different, contradictory laws given throughout the Bible that are often ambiguous enough to cause significant disagreements in exegesis. We can invent a theology to inform doctrine and then use that doctrine as a lens to read scripture through if we want to view the Bible as promoting a coherent, monolithic world view, but such a theology has to pick and choose from scripture to justify itself. This is why different denominations have wildly different doctrines, despite sharing the same scriptures. Yet they can all interpret Jesus as promoting and adhering to their specific doctrines. I think that demonstrates that Jesus's sinlessness is a meaningless assertion.

I'm an atheist. I paused at 9:06, because I need to clarify this. I guess most of the atheists you hear from aren't very well read, which disappoints but doesn't surprise me. If God interacts with or has interacted with the natural world in any way, it would leave behind physical evidence that we could investigate. It doesn't matter if he transcends the natural universe. If he interacts with the universe, then he will leave behind physical evidence of that interaction. He has to, because he would be affecting physical things in ways that would be measurable and documentable. We know radiowaves and the wind exist primarily through their indirect effects, too, this isn't new territory for science. The problem with the Argument from Design is that it was created before we discovered evolution and realized that our sun is a star. When the earth was the center of the universe and we had no other explanation for how different species seemed perfectly designed for their environments, it was a genuinely compelling argument for at least Deism. But now we know that this appearance of design is the product of unguided natural forces in the form of biological evolution. God was shoved out when that gap in our knowledge was filled in. The Argument from Design just doesn't work anymore, because the appearance of design has already been explained naturalistically.

I really enjoy your content and appreciate your efforts; may God bless!

1. "I'm not going to approach in unfair way" - immediately proceeds to strawman the atheists 2. Jesus's life death and resurrection are not a fact. 3. I have seen a lot of things that weren’t real 4. Atheist doesn't have to prove anything. Atheist, at minimum, is someone who doesn't believe in the god or gods exist. 5. People aren't making science and history based on the ancient sex manuals, science and history are based on evidence. Do you have any? Apart of an old boring book? 6. If we only take the bible as evidence and nothing else, it would only be piss poor anecdotal evidence. No stronger than the Harry Potter books are evidence of Harry Potter being real. 7. What's the point of this? Why would anyone care if Jesus have sinned? How does it prove the god? 8. What's the point again? Have ever entertained a thought it didn't happen? You're trying to prove that it did? 9. Ever heard of historical fiction? 10. Once again I don't care to disprove your silly stories? Some of them aren't even falsifiable! 11. No it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. It's not the point of being a skeptic, disproving thousand outrages claims proposed by the theists. I'm not going to believe something without a sufficient evidence and neither should you. 12. "Spending that much time in a word of god" - this just assumes this is a word of god. When I read the bible i read a book. Just a book. 13. I still don't understand how proving that Jesus haven't "sinned" even if he existed and was crucified proves the existence of god? I haven't sinned ever in my life, that doesn't prove the god exist. Jesus could exist, be a "perfect" human being from a moral standpoint and the god of the bible is still being false! Which he is! 14. This is nothing to with something i want or doesn't want to believe. I can't believe something without being present with sufficient evidence for it. And the logical fallacies (non sequitur) definitely wouldn’t convince me. Do better next time. This was awful.

This is not a new challenge. If you really want to understand the position you’re going to have to try harder.

You stroke the egos of your fellow travelers for 10 minutes before you ask a question and then you ask me to search your book of contraditory ferry tales for your magic mate being naughty? Why in the name of christ would I be interested in your scripture? I'm an athiest. I don't do magic books or gods. 12 views in 13 hours? hang on to your day job.

Believing in something when there's not a shred of evidence to support that belief is delusional. All religious beliefs are a form of mental illness. It's wishful thinking, obsessive compulsive disorder, and ofcourse delusional thinking. Read the book the God delusion by Richard Dawkins. The truth will set you free. The REAL TRUTH. That's the ONLY TRUTH. That's the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. There's no God. There's no soul. There's no heaven. There's no divine revelation. There's no divine retribution. There's no Satan. There's no Hell. And Christ is man made fantasy and fairytales and fiction just like the rest of the Bible. Embrace SCIENTIFIC REALITY and reject man made fantasy and fairytales and fiction. Remember, when you die that's it end of story. 😮

I look forward to your teaching each week. Thank you!!

What a wonderful observation! Thank you

Good topic guys

Excellent brother!

Just a short remark: moral values and free will are not entirely outside the field of science. Of course, science won't tell you what values to follow, but can definitely tell you why some people value one thing over another. And as for free will: the evidence points to free will doesn't exist the way most people (and religions) think.

Pig's Arse. 🇦🇺

"Let's put this to bed" Did not put it to bed

"We've all already observed the greatest miracle in all of history, and it's been scientifically proven". - Frank Turek

That was ok until you started special pleading. You have to prove a god exists before you attribute anything to it.

No atheist claims that there is no historical reference to any real historical places in the bible, just like any reader of Stephen King does not claim that New York he is referring to in this novel is not a real place. However, many works of fiction just like the bible and The Stand refers to actual real places because it makes for more entertaining and realistic reading of such works of fiction.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Science and the Bible shows there is no God, and IS the Earth 6000 years old?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All science says, since it isn't possible to disprove the existence of anything, is that there is no objective, measurable evidence that any sort of supernatural entity exists. Personal testimony of miracles or visions are not evidence. Emotional conviction is not evidence. Much of what we now understand through actual evidence and scientific study are things that used to be attributed to a god...but then we learned the actual answer and the frontier of human knowledge was moved. Given the history and direction of the moving frontier of knowledge, there is precedent to assume that things we can't yet explain (such as the origin of the universe) will eventually have a scientific, non-falsifiable explanation based on objective fact even if it is currently eludes us. There has been NO discovery in the history of science that has ever been later found to have "God did it" be the better answer...but basically by definition, all scientific discoveries have gone the other direction. "Faith" is literally defined as "complete trust or confidence in something or someone" AND ALSO "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." So to "have faith" is to do so in the complete and utter absence of objective evidence. So until that time that objective evidence is discovered for the existence of god, a belief in god is based ENTIRELY on indoctrination, social pressure and strong emotional manipulation. Full stop.

Is it a particle or a wave? Is it a pixelated object or a dynamic loop? The world wide web is a model of the cosmic web although not a flawless model, it's useful to compare to this universe. E=MC² tells us that matter and energy are interchangeable. This has physical and metaphysical implications. We have empirical evidence for both, physical through nuclear fission/fusion and metaphysical through the pixelated objects like icons on your desktop or mobile device. Using e=mc² as a function we can swap dark energy for material giving us an architecture capable of shaping energy into structure, giving rise to a mathematical framework which allows for possibilities to emerge, out of the fabric of said framework. Lets add an additional hard drive to my computer, this is a physical external upgrade I am making, yet that upgrade is reflected internally as free space. So external physical upgrades are reflected internally as additional space or additional hardware providing functions that wasn't there prior to upgrade. Matter and energy didn't emerge out of nothingness from non matter and energy, it's more of an evolutionary process which depends on a hierarchy. The matter and energy emerged from a possibility space, which represents a mathematical framework which allows for possibilities to spontaneously emerge through "shaping of energy into structure using architecture". Science is studying a model which was designed to help them understand reality and how the universe come into being. That's what modern computational devices are, internalized models that allow us to understand what a physical architecture is, how a physical architecture gives rise to a mathematical framework which gives rise to a possibility space, upon which metaphysical manifestations (pixelated objects) are manifest as physical objects and interactive workspaces. A spacetime continuum represents a continuation of a previous physical manifestation, not a spontaneous creation that happened accidentally. Let's compare the cosmic web to the world wide web. Cosmic Web -> Dark Energy -> Dark Matter -> Ordinary Matter World Wide Web -> Physical Architecture -> Binary Code -> Pixelated Objects The Almighty God Is With Thee in Hebrew Gematria equals 1983 The deadline for the transition from network control protocol (NCP) to TCP/IP was January 1, 1983 All nations and tongues, under one roof. Universal language, all just in time for the last hour. This date is considered the official birthday of the internet, as TCP/IP established a standard way for computer networks to communicate with each other. ARPANET and the Defense Data Network officially changed to the TCP/IP standard on January 1, 1983, hence the birth of the Internet. All networks could now be connected by a universal language. If God had a Son what would you expect him to be? If God represents the cosmic web? Would his Son represent the World Wide Web? If the cosmic web had a baby, what would it look like? The world wide web? Come on Charlotte you know you're crawling the web. Nobody has knocked the dust out of this bugger, that's why that stone hearts blackened by the sin within. A virgin older than dirt, what is it worth? Compare computer algorithms to proteins, as they perform similar functions although one serves the cosmic web and the other the world wide web. If you compare the proteins enzymatic functions, you realize they speed up chemical processes without themselves being consumed or permanently altered by the reactions. This way they retain function. The same way algorithms speed up processing of language, video and or audio production, knowing proteins and computer algorithms are part of a single tree, imagine the processing taking place under your hood. These correlations are just beginning, that's not the end of the story by any means. You can do your own research but the functions are very much aligned on different scales. Don't even waste time in the comment section I do not read them. You really think there's no structure to your family trees? No root directory, no truth to our existence and continued evolution? imgur.com/ms12EgI

Religion has zero scientific discoveries so far.

If your child has acute appendicitis will you put your faith in a sky fairy, or scientific medicine?

Christians never meet science half way, they always say that is not true. I told one how can light travel for billions of light years and the universe be 6000 years old. They responded that light travels faster in space, what an excuse, or that carbon dating is not accurate, they cannot carbon date accurately back but to the dinosaurs, I told him they don't use carbon dating back that far, no matter. many refuse to even consider science. The problem they will not debate, just get defensive and cynical. They deny there are contradictions, errors, and ignore science. How can the Jewish bible and the christian bible be meshed together? Jews don't believe Jesus was the chosen one, but the Christians do, how could god reveal everything to his chosen people but not the most important issue? Jesus believed in keeping the commandment but not Paul. So according to Christians, the Jews are hell bound.

40 years I was team God. And no it wasn't science that brought me out of it. It was a deep study on Judaism that led me to conclude it's all simply a jewish origin story mixed with mythology.

God is a woman. Why do you use the word Him. God is for beta simp males and women

God ideation arises from a pool of neurons in the right temporal lobe of humans near the limbic cortex. Science has a goal of improving the human condition. Science is not interested in God. God is a tool.

Sorry but you are unable to understand the concepts of evidence. And learn what a false dichotomy is before you use it. Words mean specific things and you word badly. We can end this argument when both side are reasonable, then we would only have one side. Thank you. No god in my house

The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attributed to the gospels centuries later. They were originally anonymous writings and not by eyewitnesses.

The gospels of the resurrection are entirely different and not written by eye witnesses. Did the women leave and tell no one? How many angels were there? Was the stone rolled away by an earthquake or was it already open when they arrived?

J Warner Wallace is only beat as a poor apologist by Ken Ham and only slightly. He uses poor analogies that would never work as evidence. Any cold case he has “solved,” should be rechecked.

The book of Daniel even by christian scholars is well known to be written and compiles over different times. Some of the authors corrected later to try to match up with prophesies.

There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible. If it were perfectly written then why are there so many denominations. Why would an all knowing god give his message in such an imperfect way.

We are looking for things that cannot be explained by natural means. Can god regrow a limb?

If you’re moving God and his actions outside of the realm of science, then you put yourself in the position of advocating for a deceitful deity. If that’s what you believe, okay. But, if you also propose God is honest by his very nature, then you don’t have to worry about science, you got to deal with that internal inconsistency.

Science is belief with evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. One is rational. One is not. Seems very easy to me.

Utter nonsense

You contradict yourself. You want to say they work beautifully. You then describe how they are not compatible. You saying god is above and beyond science. Science can not investigate god or supernatural claims. You even say as much. I agree this is a stupid debate but I dont think you realize where the stupidity lies. If you have something convincing other then science lead with that. Skeptics ask you to defend your proposition. Dont be mad that without science it comes down to trust me bro. Call into the "The Line" and tell them just what you posted. I give you credit for not deleting your comments. We just disagree with your assertion here.

As a Christian myself, what the atheists would have to accept is both the existence of Jesus as well as the super-natural. This is what this fellow is trying to say, in my paraphrasing. If atheists can not accept the super-natural, then that is your limitation, and so stop punishing us with your own limitations. The God question is much more slippery than "scientific proof," since He is inherently invisible. Why don't you clods just try to figure out how energy was created, for example, and leave God to the rest of us.

A clash and conflict between two absolutist and presumptuous worldviews, one that is reductively materialist and the other so transcendental that it becomes unaccessible and unknowable to earth bound creatures.

Same old, same old. Where is the proof for god's existence? Where is the evidence? Where are the observations? Just more words and pretzel logic.

If theists would not claim a position of superiority, would not claim to know more, and would not claim to have higher moral values than other people, then I don't think many people would object to the theistic point of view. Science is simply an effective and proven method to find out the truth about reality. And that includes ALL of reality, including the truth about God. Excluding God from that, is the same as saying that God is not real. 8:00 _"Christian apologists come up with evidence all the time that logically and philosophically ... proof the existence of God"_ - they THINK that they come up with evidence, but it has all been refuted many times over. 9:40 _"they cannot observe that, they cannot repeat that, they cannot test that or falsify that."_ - If nobody can observe it, repeat it, test it or falsify it, then is it really real and true? Or is it an illusion? 10:00 _"if we only operate in this field of science, then would we get rid of all of history, would have to get rid of all of art, you have to get rid of numbers, get rid of subjective experience, then we have to get rid of moral values"_ - This is such a bizarre, ridiculous and absurd statement, that I can only conclude that you are totally delusional. I expected a lot better from a channel called "Truth be told." There is not much truth in what you tell. And it is exactly this kind of statements of superiority that you need to avoid, if you want to promote a coexistence of religion and science, as you claim you do.

Faith vs the scientific method. I will take the scientific method. Belief in an omnipotent imaginary friend controlling the universe belongs where it was spawned. In the Bronze age.

It's rather humorous that the speaker seeks to remove "historical events" from the domain of science, only to ultimately claim that they are a good source of evidence for religious belief. "Hey guys, history isn't falsifiable, so let's go ahead and add it to a list of other unfalsifiable claims outside the domain of science. The more "sources" you have, the strong your argument is!!!" Sheesh, what intellectual bankruptcy.

An arguments against a strawman is so incredibly tedious to listen to. That is the totality of this argument.