Відео

BELIEF is NOT *"CHOICE"* or a mere act of volition. Sure someone can pretend to believe anything but the things one actually believe are not something you choose they are an involuntary response to one's level of information and understanding of their environment. You are either convinced or you are unconvinced and its EVIDENCE that convinces. I could not just make myself believe in pixies no matter how much I closed my eyes and stamped my feet. Anymore than you could right now "choose" to be convinced that God is not real or that the laws of gravity don't apply to you if you step off that cliff. Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 No of course not, for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh. Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice" If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣

How telling that if Christian soteriology is correct the most important factor that differentiates those deserving eternal paradise and those deserving eternal torment is the geographical location one is born into. If one is born in Saudi Arabia there is about a 95% chance that you will belive in the "wrong" God and reject jesus and thus receive eternal damnation in a lake of fire. However be born into America and magically there is about a 95% chance that you will believe in the "right" God and thus receive eternal salvation. 👏👏 Allegedly this is the justice of a perfect omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient loving God. The fact that many people who reject jesus often lead devout pious lives and follow very strict and demanding religious practices with regards to worship, diet, clothing and relationships is not a factor, these people seemingly reject jesus because they *"want to sin"* 🤔🤫 Some live lives of isolation and quiet contemplation taking vows of celibacy and silence but the loving jesus still deems these people unworthy of anything other than eternal torment. Conversely however a murderer so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his death bed he can spend an eternity in paradise with those he murdered. Unless of course those people also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case the murderer would be looking down from paradise on the people he killed as they too suffered for eternity with me 😡

Let's structure this in the form of a logical syllogism with premises and a conclusion, then you can indicate which specific premises you disagree with that would invalidate the derived conclusion ........ *Premise one* The Christian God is said to be morally perfect, loving, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. *Premise two* Belief in this specific god is required to prevent an eternal torment and attain salvation. *Premises three* The Christian God wants all to know of his existence and thus be saved. *Premise four* The Christian God would have both the ability and desire to demonstrate his existence to all. *Premise five* Almost three quarters of the world population do not think the Christian God exists. *Conclusion* The Christian God as described does *NOT* exist

@@trumpbellend6717 believe is a choice. I see what you did there. We believe in what is not seen. Before I was Christian I didn't know if Zeus was real or not or for that matter Santa clause really came down my chimney. Digging for the truth and hearing the word of Christ, and then seeing the evidence and historical facts, well it wasn't a hard choice to make. I can pretend to believe in a lot of things and so believe in many things that can be seen but it takes a choice to believe in something not seen.

@@richhuzy6592 Lol no dear you did not "choose" to believe in Christ you were convinced after _"seeing the evidence and historical facts"_ Now personally I don't find this so called "evidence in the least bit convincing. I asked you several questions that you completely ignored so let's try again shall we........... Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 No of course not, for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh. Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice" If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣

That is true trust and faith. What a beautiful witness, thankyou.

Sorry dear i can't "love" something that can't even be demonstrated to exist 🤭😅

@@trumpbellend6717 Do you know what love is? Can you demonstrate it for me? Prove to me that love is real? Where is it? Some people have it some people don’t. Can you point to people and tell the difference? How do you know it’s even real? Because that term “love” is tossed around like used underwear. People don’t really mean it when they say it. I’ll wait…

@@DeliaHale-oy2vh Lol "love" is word used to describe a concept incorporating an emotion that can be expressed in a variety of of ways including by one's actions and behaviours. These can take the form of both positive and altruistic and negative and selfish actions or even a combination of both. We can demonstrate objectively that peoples have "emotions" and that feelings of "love" for someone can make them willing to die for that person and also can lead to them being willing to kill them upon rejection. Unlike emotions we are unable to objectively demonstrate the existence of ANY god much less your specific subjective one. Regardless I fail to see the relevance of any arguments from incredulity or ignorance in a discourse about morality. If i were unable to answer as above the default alternative is NOT "God did it" let alone any specific "God" How does one get from _"science can't explain blah blah"_ to ...... _"therefore Yahweh did it and so its moral to "unalive" anyone who chooses the wrong day of the week to gather his sticks"_ ??

@@DeliaHale-oy2vh Now do you have any actual evidence that your specific subjective "God" exists and is the basis for morality to present or do your prefer to continue with yet more God of the gaps piffle ?? 🤔

Grow up, 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 I’ve been there, bud. There was a time when I hated God. But when I decided to open my mind and heart to Jesus (not necessarily the church or religion as they are often taught or portrayed), everything changed. I don’t have all the answers, but I can promise you this: If you honestly and sincerely give Jesus a chance, if you open your mind and heart to Him, your life will never be the same. He heals, He gives peace and joy, He loves… At the end of the day, this is not about you, me, or anyone arguing or debating, it’s about each individual’s choice to either accept or reject Jesus. If you’re interested in hearing what Biblical preaching is supposed to sound like, I recommend Curry Blake from JGLM. Peace to you, bro.

@@JPLROK // "I've been there there was a time when I hated god" // Lol you clearly haven't "been there" dear I'm an atheist and don't "hate" God for the same reason I don't hate pink unicorns or Santa. Any previous "atheist" would never open with such logically incoherent statement dear

@@JPLROK // "choice to accept or reject Jesus" // Lol BELIEF is NOT *"CHOICE"* or a mere act of volition. Sure someone can pretend to believe anything but the things one actually believe are not something you choose they are an involuntary response to one's level of information and understanding of their environment. You are either convinced or you are unconvinced and its EVIDENCE that convinces. I could not just make myself believe in pixies no matter how much I closed my eyes and stamped my feet. Anymore than you could right now "choose" to be convinced that God is not real or that the laws of gravity don't apply to you if you step off that cliff. Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 No of course not, for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh. Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice" If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣

@@JPLROK How telling that if Christian soteriology is correct the most important factor that differentiates those deserving eternal paradise and those deserving eternal torment is the geographical location one is born into. If one is born in Saudi Arabia there is about a 95% chance that you will belive in the "wrong" God and reject jesus and thus receive eternal damnation in a lake of fire. However be born into America and magically there is about a 95% chance that you will believe in the "right" God and thus receive eternal salvation. 👏👏 Allegedly this is the justice of a perfect omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient loving God. The fact that many people who reject jesus often lead devout pious lives and follow very strict and demanding religious practices with regards to worship, diet, clothing and relationships is not a factor. According to Christians these people seemingly reject jesus because they *"want to sin"* 🤔🤫 Some live lives of isolation and quiet contemplation taking vows of celibacy and silence but the loving jesus still deems these people unworthy of anything other than eternal torment. Conversely however a murderer so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his death bed he can spend an eternity in paradise with those he murdered. Unless of course those people also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case the murderer would be looking down from paradise on the people he killed as they too suffered for eternity with me 😡

I'm questioning your ability to demonstrate ANY god exists let alone that you know which specific one and which specific interpretation of said "god" represents morality dear. I question anyone that thinks an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent loving God would have no alternative to creating a world in which innocent babies and children "need" to suffer 🤮

Lol what are you even talking about ?? For me justice is all about "fairness", responsibility, equality, accountability, and consequences all of which can be negated under Christian soteriology by one's acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims and a willingness to pass the buck. One's eternal salvation or damnation is determined not by their actions in life but membership of the "belief club" *John 5 24* _“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_ Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) prescribed by Christian theology. Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral. The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, my bad deeds can't be "taken" by another anymore than my good nor should they.

// "doing the right thing" // "Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔

Did God not alledgedly have foreknowledge of precisely what would occur when he created "satan" ?? Yet he still chose to do so

So you think babies are immoral and therefore need to feel pain and suffering? 🤮 shame on you

if you check the most accurate scriptures you will find the word 'sovereign' appears exactly 0 times. the 'sovereignty' of God lie is that everything is preordained, utter, complete claptrap.

You missed it, he said some people need pain to guide them to GOD

​@@toadynamite8141 So innocent babies and children "need" to feel pain and suffering using your reasoning 🤔 and you actually think you have something to contribute to a discourse about "morality" ?? ( shakes head in disgust )

Because there’s no good answer, people suffer because everything suffers, it’s nature.

@@RadTrav270 you are wrong. There is good and correct answer There is no god

😂😂😂 may you meet Him and know He exists!

​@@theos2493 Demonstrate the existence of a "soul" dear

​@@ntsoakinkoe3869 // "know he exists" // Knowledge of FACTS, also called "propositional knowledge", is defined as true belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. A "FACT" is a point of data that is objectively verifiable ( demonstrable ) Absent "Facts" one has only the opinion or guesswork and no justification to claim such knowledge. Science has all the FACTS yet claims nothing as "absolute" truth. Christianity conversely claims absolute truth in everything yet has no FACTS 😜 To assert as FACT that for which there is insufficient evidence is intellectually dishonesty and essentially no different than a *"LIE"*

@@theos2493 Lol firstly the historical accuracy of the bible has *ZERO* relevance to its authenticity. Even if the bible were written by mere ordinary superstitious primative tribesmen. They would still know about towns, places, people, leaders kings ect. That's the very LEAST we would expect. Herodotus wrote about life in 500bc he spoke of real people and places does that mean his works are inspired of god ??? Of course not. The city of Troy has been discovered does that therefore mean that a pantheon of God's actually lives atop Mount Olympus. If some future archeological dig discovered the ruins of New York and the empire state building would they be justified in thinking *KING KONG* was therfore real ???? Nonsense. There is no archeological evidence for anything supernatural only the normal mundane stuff we find with everything else. Almost every fictional book ever written will contain references to real places and people even Harry Potter it means nothing. However if there were historical INACCURACIES (and there are lots ) that's a different story. When was jesus born for example ? Because the historical evidence disagrees alarmingly with the bible on that for starters. Quirinius's census we know conclusively did not occur until 6 AD not 3 years before the death of Herod ( which occurred in 4 BC ) but many years after. And yes I know there was more than one Herod, I can go into detail if you like about how we know exactly which one it was and can cross reference with Mathew ect.

@@theos2493 Secondly you speak of _"eyewitness"_ what "eyewitness" name them ? The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness testimonies dear and no biblical scholar would even claim they were actually written by Mathew mark luke or John, these were simply names ascribe many years after by church tradition

That’s not really the point of the argument.

@@loganwarner4299 Even the point of the video is moot, doesn’t matter if the apostles truly did believe in Jesus resurrecting. If I give you a dichotomy for this let’s say: “There are people who rot in prison because they claim they truly saw Aliens abducting animals. They wouldn’t rot in prison for something they didn’t believe in!” You have still don’t have anything as evidence. Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence in science, it remains that way today. People die for things they think are true; this doesn’t actually mean it’s true. Most Christian would feel this way about Muslim martyrs, dying for something they believe in, dying for something that’s wrong.

A few things: 1. Please give me an example of multiple people dying in prison over claims of the same incident of Aliens abducting animals. Even if you can, whats to say they are wrong? Can you feasibly make the claim that aliens aren't real against their claim that aliens are real with no evidence to their evidence? But in the case of Christianity, this is just one piece of a greater puzzle, you can't discount Christianity just based off of one piece of evidence. 2. The bible itself is evidence. Scientists from all over the world look to ancient writings as scientific proof. For example, "Histories" by Herodotus was written even before the bible and is used by scientists today as a source on ancient Greek culture and lifestyle. 3. Another great argument for the necessity of a greater being is the creation of the universe, specifically Thomas Aquinas' arguments from motion and efficient causes. 4. And I agree, people die all the time for things they believe to be true, but people almost never die for things that they know to be false. The apostles were in the unique position to know the truth of the resurrection and almost all of them died as martyrs.

Please give me an example where multiple people have died for the same sighting of aliens abducting animals. What's to say that those sightings are false? You can’t discredit a claim with evidence for another claim that has no evidence. In this particular example, and many others, people have died for things that they believe to be true. However, the apostles' situation (of knowing Jesus before, during, and after his ministry; and claiming to see him in the flesh and being the main advocates of claiming the resurrection) puts them in the unique example of being able to truly know if Jesus rose from the dead. In other words, they would know if his resurrection was false. This is the core pillar of this argument: people will almost never die for something they know to be false. It's not that people will die for something they believe to be true. Think about it, would you die for something that you know to be false? This argument for christianity is just one peice of the greater puzzle of faith. For example, the bible is another noteworthy piece of evidence that points to christianity. And because I feel like you will try to discredit it, compare it to the thousands of other ancient texts scholars use and rely on as facts. You can also look to Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways, and the spread of christianity after Jesus' resurrection, and the complexity yet uniformity of DNA, the moral argument, and much more as evidence towards a greater being and christianity.

@@loganwarner4299 The argument I made was that people die for things they think are true, that doesn’t mean what they died for is actually true: We have no evidence of Jesus being resurrected now, nor do we have anything but eye witnesses from then. (With incredible bias) The bible is not a piece of evidence either, every religion has a book or scripture they follow that claims to be true. You would have to believe the Muslims have an equal amount of evidence due to Quran, but I assume you don’t believe that do you. As for books, the majority of biologists are Atheist, I’m not appealing to authorities I’m simply saying there is nothing in DNA suggesting God and that field’s demographics show that. Lastly; the moral argument is “arguably” one of the least persuasive with God, many avid readers of the Old Testament especially know God to be horrible and warmongering.

Why? Can you name any other religion or event where people died for something that they knew to be false? As he mentioned in the video, the apostles were in one of the best positions to truly know if the resurrection truly happened and their martyrdoms are the extreme representations of their beliefs in Jesus' resurrection. If the resurrection didn't happen, I think we can confidently say, then, that each of the twelve apostles would have faced torture and death and upheld their faith through it all.

​@@loganwarner4299 So Islam is the truth because people died for it believing it is the truth?

You are missing one of the key tenets of this argument. If I stood up and claimed that the sun was a God and then burned myself as a “martyr”, obviously that wouldn’t make that claim true or believable. This is because I could believe that the sun really is a God. However, if I visited the sun and saw in person that it was truly a God and then was willing to die for that belief, then my claim would be much more plausible. It would become even more believable if there were others who saw that the sun was a God in person and died for that belief. This applies specifically to the apostles because they are in the best position to know the truth of the resurrection. 12 people would not willingly die for a lie, something they themselves know not to be true. However, if they were 12 random people who didn’t know the truth died, then of course, their deaths would not be such a resounding testament to the truth.

@@loganwarner4299 There were hundreds of thousands of companions of the Prophet PBUH who died after seeing him and believing him to be the Prophet of God. This argument works better with the Islamic perspective, since it has a larger amount of people testifying to the truth and much, much, much better historical recording. The story of 12 people who were recorded in a very controversial and unscientific way, giving room for a person to completely scratch their stories as simply fabricated, is completely different from hundreds of thousands of companions who underwent great recording that fit scientific criteria. They are not even comparable.

1. I agree with you, people will die for something that they believe to be true, but almost no one will die for something that they believe to be false. 2. In the case of the prophet Muhammad, I doubt that hundreds of thousands of people knew him well enough to confidently and rightly assert whether he was a true prophet. In the instance of christianity, the apostles knew Jesus before, during, and after his ministry, and were first hand witnesses of his resurrection. 3. What better proof does islam offer of the divinity of Muhammad versus the divinity of Jesus. 4. Describe how the great recording of the companions is better and more scientific than the bible.

You can’t just make an opposing claim without proof to a claim that has proof.