Wow it's nice to put a face to a voice that I have heard so much! Love your podcasts guys, I think I've listened to all of them multiple times. I am a highschool chaplain and I use your content for discussions/devotions really often so thank you so much for your work!
If unchallenged straw man arguments are your thing then this is the video for you. No evidence presented. Mischaracterizations. Conclusory arguments only.
You guys have misunderstood the reasons why Gervaas doesn’t believe in God. It is not that fact that there is a natural explanation for a severed leg regrowing (your example), it is he because he is not convinced with the evidence for God. If you researched more on Gervais’ beliefs you would know that he would believe in God if the evidence was compelling. For example in his case if he were to witness a miracle then he would believe. Notice there is NO reference that this miracle would be predicated on any scientific method
I really tried to listen, but in the end, the twisted, apologetic rhetoric and illogical thought just drove me away. Just chatter, no substance. Idiots talking to themselves.
Atheism doesn't have a claim. They just don't believe your claim there is a God.
Wow it's nice to put a face to a voice that I have heard so much! Love your podcasts guys, I think I've listened to all of them multiple times. I am a highschool chaplain and I use your content for discussions/devotions really often so thank you so much for your work!
Wow
If unchallenged straw man arguments are your thing then this is the video for you. No evidence presented. Mischaracterizations. Conclusory arguments only.
Why? I don't know, simple. Can't assume a God.
That doesn't make atheists lazy intellectually, it means it's ok to say we don't know?
Methodological naturalism is accepting that we are BLOCKED from knowing things beyond the natural, not that there IS nothing beyond the natural.
You guys have misunderstood the reasons why Gervaas doesn’t believe in God. It is not that fact that there is a natural explanation for a severed leg regrowing (your example), it is he because he is not convinced with the evidence for God. If you researched more on Gervais’ beliefs you would know that he would believe in God if the evidence was compelling. For example in his case if he were to witness a miracle then he would believe. Notice there is NO reference that this miracle would be predicated on any scientific method
How do take the leap to "therefore god?"
I really tried to listen, but in the end, the twisted, apologetic rhetoric and illogical thought just drove me away. Just chatter, no substance. Idiots talking to themselves.