@@roxanne2977 yes I deeply became passionate about the pro life movement during pregnancy. You just can’t deny it and people can do mental gymnastics all they want about it. But it’s life and it should be protected.
@@trumpbellend6717 When did any of us think all women have the same experiences or desires? Some women were able to be brainwashed to believe a certain group of humans is inferior, and some were not. Just like in the past when this happened.
I’m sorry this is too frustrating to watch. These students are low level thinkers. It might be mean to say, but they didn’t understand ANY of your arguments or thought exercises. What are they teaching students these days?
Exactly. I always try to be as respectful as possible, but it is literally just a fact that these people are too stupid to understand a single word he's saying. This entire conversation was pointless if they are too dull to understand that he isn't saying rape should be legal.
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" Matthew 7:6 The phrase is a metaphor that suggests that if you give something valuable to people who not only fail to understand its value, but hate what you say, they might trample over it and then attack you.
Thank you Hayden for speaking the truth with boldness 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼praying for your strength and perseverance 💜❤️💙I’m in Canada BTW, and have been watching debates and apologetics to learn how to do what you:) also teaching my children to also be this voice, thank you Jesus! And thank you Hayden
even if that's true, it's a red herring argument; you're drawing attention to something that doesn't matter. If the parasite is Human, it still has dignity and other people have no right to end its life.
@@adhvaynarayanan5648 parasite [ par-uh-sahyt ] Phonetic (Standard) IPA noun an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
6:56 “you can’t force people to give up their bodily autonomy”. Except for the millions of men who are forced to fight and die on the battlefield for the U.S. military
Exactly. These kinds of five-on-one screaming matches are never productive in any way. I much prefer Hayden's one-on-one discussions. These people literally can't even understand that he isn't advocating for legalizing rape... if they can't understand that, I'm sorry, but they are too freaking stupid to understand anything else he has to say.
How did that predict exactly what I’m doing too. I paused it at 3:48 and went to the comments to see if anyone else couldn’t even watch at this point. They can’t even make sense of his arguments. 😂
@@BolitaBallsthese people make no valid arguments and act like small children, can’t even respectfully stand and listen to someone with another opinion speak is pretty pathetic, all while being rude condescending and a pathetic waste of breathe, and it has nothing to do with your opinion on abortion
It drives me freaking nuts how these people are so unable to follow any kind of logical reasoning that they think you are arguing that men should be able to rape women 🤦♀ the girl with the ponytail in the gray shirt, in particular, just cannot even begin to follow your logic enough to realize that you aren't advocating for that. It's so incredibly stupid. "WHY?? You have to question that?!" No, ma'am... no he doesn't. He's making a point. Use your freaking brain and your ears for two seconds, please, to actually listen and understand before you start freaking out over something that nobody is saying.
See, to them it’s just a given that a man cannot rape a woman. There is no “why” for them. “It’s just wrong,” they’ll say. “Don’t you see that?” You’re right. They cannot follow the logic or defend their position.
@buddy_132 sad but true. I am praying for humility and soft hearts for my family on some things, but unfortunately it is their free will to choose whether or not to accept truth, so I can't pray for God to force it upon them.
@@CassTeaElle There’s a reason God compares our work to planting seeds. Often time we won’t see any fruits in a person for a long time if ever in our lifetime. I preached the truth to my brother and he would get angry and thought I was crazy. It wasn’t until 7 years later he calls me and admits he was wrong; that he remembered the words I said to him all those years ago and he grew closer to God more than ever before. Your words and actions can have the same impact. With God all things are possible
@buddy_132 thank you for saying that. I know that to be true, but it can be discouraging after years of trying to get through to people. All I can do is pray for them.
If we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies, then why do tell them not to drink, smoke, do hard drugs, or take pills and remedies that cause birth defects?
"he is disrespectful by interrupting when we try to speak" says the ones interrupting him EVERY time he tries to say something. Projection much? Also, "I'm not trying to imply that babies are parasites, but by definition wouldnt a fetus be a parasite...?" Wow, just, wow..
One vs Many and still you held your ground. It's impressive how you were able to keep your composure when that lady started heckling. Hope you were able to plant some seeds in their hearts.
Glasses girl thought she was the angel of truth came in and accused you of everything she was doing. Then Karen came in and started flapping, the cases when it is necessary to have an abortion are extremely rare.
Keep up the good work!! God bless you. I love the consistency in your logic. It's stunning to see the cognitive dissonance in full display here. Obviously not a group of thinkers, rather a group of programmed NPC's.
These days are sad. Just like in older times without prosthetics for amputees, it's sad that there's no way to repair the faulty logic so many people have today. Many people don't have the logical prerequisites to have an argument. Hayden asks "If bodily autonomy is so important, why can't men r_pe women?", because if bodily autonomy is important, then if men aren't allowed to r_pe women, thereby violating the woman's bodily autonomy, then a woman shouldn't be allowed to violate the bodily autonomy of the human being inside her. The students respond "So you think men should be able to r_pe women? That's what you just said!". Man these are sad times. I'm not sure if it's an intellectual, genetic issue that people can't surpass even through effort. Or, if it's a simple fix, where a couple-week logic class given in middle and high school would solve the issue. No papers needed, just a few debates. In order to graduate high school, you must be able to comprehend and partake in a logical debate. Perhaps an emotionally-charged one.
// "a woman shouldn't be allowed to violated the bodily autonomy of the human being inside her" // A zygote doesn't have a "body" to violate dear. "Human being" is not a scientific term its a metaphysical concept and as such what attributes constitute a "human being" and when one becomes one is an entirely SUBJECTIVE determination.
It's not life vs choice it's life vs killing. Like up vs down. Not like up vs left. "pro choice" - What is the choice? To Kill? yes. 3 of them attacking you with nonsense arguments and you smoked them all lmao
You speak of "logic" but I suspect you think it "logical" that our moral status is the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible God called Yahweh 🤔?
Not sure if you’ll see this but this was an amazing watch! Pile ons can be so difficult and require a lot of quick wits, but you handled this one amazingly. Keep it up.
As an atheist I agree with Christians on the anti-abortion stance. If the argument is, that a child never has a right to a woman's body, then the entirety of child neglect laws breaks down because in that case a child is not entitled to being breastfed and having sufficient attention in order not to perish.
@@trumpbellend6717 A child is a human being below the age of puberty. The fetus in the womb is a human being (+). The fetus is below the age of puberty (+). Thus the fetus can also be called a child. I mean we can fight about definitions, but the main point of my argument is that a human life can be entitled to another human's body and resources under certian conditions because we allocate special value to children and babies. They are vulnerable as their life is dependent on other human beings and this dependence is none of their fault as nobody chooses to be conceived, thus exploiting this dependence by depriving them of the attention they need to survive is cruel and shouldn't be tolerated.
@@j.d.s.8132 Nope "human being" is not a scientific term its a metaphysical concept and as such what attributes constitute a "human being" and when one becomes one is an entirely subjective determination 🤫
I don’t understand how folks would actively advocate for their own fellow men’s non existent rather than advocating for social programs to provided all of us a right to life. Make it make sense
6:50 'You can't force someone to give up bodily autonomy to save a life.' ...except when we say that healthcare is a human right and the government should rob you to pay for other people's healthcare. Mothers are different, though! They need to be allowed to murder their own babies but provide for strangers. It's not a parasitic relationship; the baby makes the woman healthier.
// "Rob you to pay for other people's healthcare" // Lol you seem confused dear, its about contributing to a pot that's used for common benefit. Would you say the money used to fund the police, or military or emergency services was "robbed" to pay for others protection dear ? 🙄
Also super convenient for her to not think a father working so he can be forced to pay child support doesn't count as giving up bodily autonomy. Gotta love casual misandry. She doesn't understand hypocrisy; she can't even understand that two contradicting things can't coexist.
@bertimusprime7900 No dear with a "CHILD" that has been born, there ARE moral obligations because it has *PERSONHOOD* ,,, conciousness, intelligence, self awareness, it feels pain and exhibits emotions like love and fear. This is the differentiation that you totally disregard!! We stamp upon ants without a thought, throw lobsters alive into boiling water. But we do not treat animals that demonstrate the above listed attributes in the same way ( dogs for example ) Because we rightly assign creatures with such attributes more "moral weight". That's what this whole debate is about,, A fetus does NOT have those attributes and qualities "initially", they develop throughout gestation. To pretend they have them at conception is just as dishonest as the denial of them just before a birth. There can be no disputing that personhood occurs somewhere along this journey, I have no doubt. But please stop with the religious ignorant _"human being at conception"_ nonsense when determining precisely where. Let's look to the science for the answers on brain, sensory and emotional development. Then look to our hearts and intellect and incorporate the science to reach a sensible rational moral conclusion.
@@trumpbellend6717 The animals you listed will never grow into an creature with the kind of intelligence a human has. A zygote will become a "person" as you define it. No other animal or creature on earth has ever created a society or culture. Humans are not the same as animals. I can't believe that has to be typed out... Besides all of that, there are many humans who lack those qualities, be it due to defect, injury, what have you. It does not reduce their moral value, or make them less of a human, or "person." It makes them vulnerable.
@@trumpbellend6717 , science is already settled and has been for a long time: human life starts at fertilization. Even if I were arrogant enough to include your other criteria as prerequisites for value, you cannot say when any of them start, partly because every human develops at a different rate and partly because, as technology improves, we observe these things sooner and sooner. Admit that Satan is your daddy and you are evil. Stop pretending to be smart or moral.
🙏🇺🇸 I pray for these people in our country. They clearly purposefully make bad faith arguments they know what they’re claiming is wrong and a horrendous abomination. Our home is down the gutter🙁
@@trumpbellend6717 Oo, a false equivalency, never heard that before! A human zygote is a human, and I believe in human rights, no matter their physical or mental state.
@@bertimusprime7900 Great I think a human $, perm is a human, so what now ?? Are you going to use some subjective and arbitrarily developmental stage attributes to claim they are not, just like those you denigrate do ?
"Truth" is demonstrated dear not asserted, its that which best conforms with the FACTS and EVIDENCE and has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's "faith" in a God. 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"*
🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept
@@trumpbellend6717 It's objective because you can ask him who he is. So who has all truth? 1. God 2. The majority 3. You If your answer is 2 or 3, then in actuality its YOU and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear.
@@44ARISEandSHINE44 Lol I take from your response that English is not your first language. Can you please get someone fluent in your particular dialect of gibberish to translate it, then repost it so I can respond properly.
We still get a lot of objections in our culture today. Here are some objections to absolute truth... 1. There is no truth! 2. You can’t know truth! 3. All truth is relative! 4. It’s true for you but not for me! 5. No one has the truth! 6. You ought not judge! As Christians if we can’t refute these objections then we can’t say the Bible is true. The way to refute these claims is to apply the claim to itself. For example: If someone says they can’t speak a word of English, while speaking English. What would you say? I would say “Didn’t you SAY that in English? So that statement they made is self defeating. It’s logically self defeating. Something that is practically self defeating would be for me to say, “my parents had no kids that lived.” Well, I have to be here to say that. Or “my brother is an only child.” Or “everything I say is a lie.” Or “all generalizations are false.” This shows that the person making the claim has no ground to stand on. When people utter self defeating statements, you can show them their argument has no ground to stand on and they plummet to the ground in a heap. The entire argument collapses. So when someone says “there is no truth”, I would say “Is THAT true?” Just turn the claim on itself. Is it true that there’s no truth? Because if it’s true there’s no truth, then the claim “there is no truth” can’t be true. But it claims to be true. This is what we call a self defeating statement. It doesn’t meet its own standard. It violates the law of non-contradiction. It’s just a fundamental law of all logic. Unfortunately in a lot of schools today we don’t teach logic anymore. Opposite ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. This is a good way to help being a lie detector. We have a built in lie detector called the Law of Non Contradiction. A self defeating statement has no ground on which to stand.
@ There are many things that are not material that we know exist. One of those things is the Laws of Logic. These are immaterial things that exist. The Laws of Logic exist independent of human minds. So the question is, “How can the laws of logic exist without some material function enacting their behavior?” Let me give you a thought experiment: Let’s suppose there are NO HUMAN MINDS on earth. There is just a single rock on earth. Which was the real life case for a certain period of time before humans existed. If I say there are no human minds on the earth, would that statement be true? Yes. So we know the laws of logic exist independent of human minds. In fact, we couldn’t even communicate unless we were accessing the same laws of logic. So if you had your “private” idea of the laws of logic and I had my “private” idea of the laws of logic, there’s no way we could even communicate. We are trafficking in immaterial reality right now to even talk to one another and that immaterial reality in my view is GROUNDED IN THE NATURE OF GOD. So it is grounded in a mind (not the human mind), but it is grounded in THE GREAT MIND. Not just our minds. Our minds use that as a bridge to other minds BUT we humans DID NOT create that bridge. That bridge is what we mean by GOD’S NATURE. So what I’m saying is if there were NO MATERIAL, GOD WOULD STILL EXIST. God wasn’t created. That’s the point. This being that we call God always existed. So things like the laws of math and the laws of logic are DERIVATIVES OF GOD’S NATURE. He’s the Orderer of all things. So logic, math, why we have a sensible world that orderly, are EXPRESSIONS or EFFECTS of the Orderer. God is actually NEEDED for science. I know this sounds crazy to atheists, BUT without an orderly universe there would no way we could even do science. There must be an Orderer for that.
@@trumpbellend6717 There are many things that are not material that we know exist. One of those things is the Laws of Logic. These are immaterial things that exist. The Laws of Logic exist independent of human minds. So the question is, “How can the laws of logic exist without some material function enacting their behavior?” Let me give you a thought experiment: Let’s suppose there are NO HUMAN MINDS on earth. There is just a single rock on earth. Which was the real life case for a certain period of time before humans existed. If I say there are no human minds on the earth, would that statement be true? Yes. So we know the laws of logic exist independent of human minds. In fact, we couldn’t even communicate unless we were accessing the same laws of logic. So if you had your “private” idea of the laws of logic and I had my “private” idea of the laws of logic, there’s no way we could even communicate. We are trafficking in immaterial reality right now to even talk to one another and that immaterial reality in my view is GROUNDED IN THE NATURE OF GOD. So it is grounded in a mind (not the human mind), but it is grounded in THE GREAT MIND. Not just our minds. Our minds use that as a bridge to other minds BUT we humans DID NOT create that bridge. That bridge is what we mean by GOD’S NATURE. So what I’m saying is if there were NO MATERIAL, GOD WOULD STILL EXIST. God wasn’t created. That’s the point. This being that we call God always existed. So things like the laws of math and the laws of logic are DERIVATIVES OF GOD’S NATURE. He’s the Orderer of all things. So logic, math, why we have a sensible world that orderly, are EXPRESSIONS or EFFECTS of the Orderer. God is actually NEEDED for science. I know this sounds crazy to atheists, BUT without an orderly universe there would no way we could even do science. There must be an Orderer for that.
@@gorillaz_jbi First thing, I asked a very specific question but you did not answer. Instead you say they are "derivatives of God's nature" which nonsensical
@@gorillaz_jbi // "there are many things that are not material that we know exist" // Lol of course dear they exist as metaphysical "CONCEPTS" from the mind of men things like numbers, morality, and gods, absent a human mind such "concepts" no longer exist
If you don’t look too closely it just looks like an argument, but you do move most people from “they aren’t human, who cares” to “nobody likes abortion, but sometimes it’s necessary” which is not true, but it’s progress
"I think youre using an emotionally heated topic.." says the side that ALWAYS brings up the edge case of rape in the abortion debate 😬 projection much?
OK, I'll bite. There two, and only two, situations where an abortion is justified. 1. Where the pregnancy is unplanned or unwanted. 2. Where continuing the pregnancy would jeopardize the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Here is an example of an abortion law in a country other than the USA. Less than 22 weeks, informed consent of the pregnant woman only. Beyond 22 weeks, with the approval of one or doctors. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
@@marcuscook3852 Stating that pro-choicers often bring up edge cases in a debate doesn't mean we're unaware pro-choicers are for murdering to avoid inconvenience, it's hardly a strong point to debate.
Would you describe the 1% of abortions that occur late term as "edge case" dear ? I only ask because so called "pro-lifere's" ALWAYS bring them up and get all _"emotionally heated"_ about them 🙄
Those students are so galactically irrational and arrogant. There are ways to arrive at the conclusion that its wrong to rape, even if you claim to be atheist (and most people know its wrong anyway). However, God also tells us not to kill and that's what makes me curious as to what their positions are on the unborn. I'm guessing they're for human rights... yet would they be for a mother ignoring those rights and having an abortion doctor killing their unborn daughter or son even if there's no health problem in the baby or mother?
// "God yes us not to kill" // Sorry didn't he allegedly do this to every baby, child, animal on the planet, saving only 8 on a boat with a few animals?
_"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes Completely destroy them, the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded you"_ *Deuteronomy 20 : 16 -17*
You are aware that in the Biblical narrative, God warned humanity about the flood possibly up to 120 years in advance and also prepared a way of escape? For all we know, had more people been humble, and repented, God could easily have prepared more than one vessel to escape in.
@@switzerlandful Lol how quickly your narrative changes from one of _"killing babies is always wrong"_ to one of _"well it can be moral to kill babies dependant upon how much warning time was afforded and how humble and repentant their parents and grandparents are"_ 🤭😅🤣🤣
I'm a christian pro-lifer, but you can't make the pro-life position dependent on christianity. We live in a society with people of various religious beliefs, and we must find some way to derive the value of fetal life from outside the Bible. We need an ethical system that is accepted by all people, whether christian or not. If we borrow from christian theology to construct this ethical system, we will need to provide secular arguments for why this ethical system is correct, in order to use it in a secular society. Regarding the sanctity of the fetus, we can treat human neurones as sacred. All born human beings exhibit consciousness emerging from the human brain. Human brains are composed of human neurons, which are the necessary cells for consciousness. As christians, we should consider the soul to inhabit these neurons, but for a secular society, the neurons should be treated as the most sacred thing. Since the fetus already possesses neurons very early in the pregnancy, its conscious experience should be considered equivalent to that of born humans, since it has an equivalent capacity for pain.
@trumpbellend6717 An argument for the existence of God - something rather than nothing To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence-why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 1. Reality is an illusion. 2. Reality is/was self-created. 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal). 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent. So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated. Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” -something coming from nothing-a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. Now we are left with only two choices-an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads: • Something exists. • Nothing cannot create something. • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists. Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter? To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, HONEST scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal. Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: • Something exists. • You do not get something from nothing. • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
@trumpbellend6717 An argument for the existence of God - knowing the Creator But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything that is logically possible. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given). These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1) He is powerful (Jeremiah 32:17) He is eternal (Psalm 90:2) He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7) He is timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6) He is immaterial (John 4:24) He is personal (Genesis 3:9) He is necessary (Colossians 1:17) He is infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4) He is diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19) He is intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5) He is purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11) He is moral (Daniel 9:14) He is caring (1 Peter 5:6-7)
@trumpbellend6717 An argument for the existence of God - the flaws of atheism One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes-“no god,” which is what “atheist” means-is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition-one that denies the existence of something-cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
@trumpbellend6717 An argument for the existence of God - the conclusion So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).
These students have never had an opposite thought. Its called cognitive dissonance. When their entire belief system is completely shattered and they cant understand what just happened. Also, do these colleges NOT teach how to think opposite ways?? This is absolutely disgusting. These women need their hormones checked.
You can see how fundamentally different these people are, all of their arguments and statements are solely based on assumptions. Quite literally everything these pro abortionists say even as something simple as a camera is assumed to be wrong think by these people. It’s impossible to argue with someone when from the get go think your a horrible person, you are beneath them.
@trumpbellend6717 What made God? “Who or what created God?” God is eternal. He did not come from anywhere. That may sound “unscientific” or a way of avoiding the question, IN TRUTH, OBSERVATION AND REASON declare otherwise. When you ask who created God or where did god come from, that is assuming that God had a CAUSE. By definition an ETERNAL SPIRIT, or everlasting God, cannot logically have a cause. Asking about Gods cause is as incoherent as asking “why Matter is eternal?” Matter is not eternal. Matter is no more an eternal essence without a cause than God is a physical being with a cause. Asking where did God come from? Is like asking “When did eternity start?” By definition eternity never began. Eternity is without beginning and end. By definition, SO IS GOD. From what we observe in nature matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. We refer to this as 1st law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists allege the universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter, 13-16 billion years ago. Yet they never provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of this “ball of matter”. An attempt was made a few years ago when evolutionist David Shiga said, “The quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all, instead of nothing?” The fact is, a logical naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. IT CANNOT EXIST so long as the first law of thermodynamics is true. Matter and energy cannot create themselves. Since the universe exists and cannot have created itself, then the universe is either eternal or something or someone outside of the universe must have created it. VERY FEW scientists say that the universe is eternal. There would be no point in trying to explain the beginning of the universe with the Big Bang for example, if scientists believed it had always existed. What’s more is the second law of thermodynamics, matter and energy become less usable over time, has led scientists to conclude that the universe had not always existed. So it’s not eternal. So why don’t the laws of thermodynamics or the law of causality apply to God? Because these scientific laws apply to nature. By definition, God is not natural and so logically is not subject to the laws of nature. So if Matter is not eternal and it cannot create itself, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that something, Or someone outside of nature, Who is supernatural caused the material universe and everything in it. Christians call this the eternal God. Because He is from everlasting to everlasting.
I really liked that video of you arguing about abortion with that chill guy close to a clock inside a campus. For some reason when people are in a group they behave very agressively.
I love the irony of the Clint Eastwood western music from the jews harp trying to be used as a distraction while you are fighting off bad arguments like an Eastwood hero character fighting off bad guys.
These people are so entitled and narcissistic and insufferable. God bless you for being able to go Into the lions den because they just make me rage haha
I'm guessing he was just using short hand. Considering how they were ganging up on him, the distinction would've fallen on deaf ears, probably more so then the basic logic he was using.
Some of the students were really respectful but some just assumed you had the worse of intentions and said you were here just for clout. Address the arguments and not assume something without any proof.
Wrong, X is not WRONG just because God says so. X is wrong for the REASON God said so. He did not just flip a coin and say, "heads = murder is wrong tails = right". He has a reason that justifies His moral position that makes it true murder is wrong. For the Christian, it's enough that God said so. But for the rest, you must give them the reason God said so. The atheist can NOT Give you a reason y murder is wrong. They only have opinion or preference, neither govern what is true. X is not wrong or right just bc in your opinion it is. Without God you can not justify your opinion why X is wrong or right with REASON. Thus you are a FOOL, that is one who operates without reason unable to justify why they think what they think. You may say it's about well being, but who's opinion determines what WELL is..... Hitler? You may say society determines what is right by passing laws. Was slavery right when it was legal? U can't be consistent, all you have is your opinion or preference of you believe not in God . Why is murder wrong? Give me a reason and not your opinion or preference....... u can't. You operate without reason.
@catalyst3713 well, he is right to a point. It's true murder is wrong. It's true God said murder was wrong. The Christian understands God is ultimate truth. What ever He says, it truth. So for the beleiver, murder is wrong bc God says so. For them, that's enough. But to the unbeliever they do not recognize God's authority. It means nothing to them that God said so. Therfore you must use reason to convince them. And the reason God said murder is wrong is in fact why it is wrong. Problem is, most don't know why God said murder is wrong bc the fact He said so is good enough for them. The atheist can not give you REASONS for their morality. All they have is opinion or preference. And yet by their standards that's not enough. That is, they will not give you all their money just bc in your opinion they ought to. Yet they expect us to agree with them based on nothing but their opinion or preference. Ex: i don't want to be murdered so I don't murder = PREFERENCE. I dont want to live in a society where ppl are murdering each other = PREFERENCE We ought to live in a way that i feel promotes my definition of well being = OPINION/PREFERENCE ASK, why is murder wrong? Bc it causes pain = (in my opinion causing pain is wrong) . That's not reason, it's opinion. Or Murder is wrong bc society determines it is = OPINION of a group, still opinion. Truth is not governed by opinion or preference. Thus in order to justify your opinion murder is truly wrong, you must have REASON. Atheist abandon reason. The Bible says the FOOL says there is no God. A fool operates without reason, they certainly can not give u reason that justifies their beliefs or actions. All of their answerscan be narrowed down to , "bc i said so, or prefer it . " They can not be consistent either. Ex: X is wrong bc it's illegal. When asked if slavery was ok when it was legal they say no. Ppl without reason or logic can not be consistent.
I feel like most of Hayden's content is 1 on 1 conversations, which are usually MUCH more productive. This kind of 5 on 1 shouting match is never fruitful. I've never seen a single good thing come from this style of "debate," if you can even call it a debate when one side is just screaming and not listening to/understanding anything the other person is saying.
@CassTeaElle the value is the confrontation, the further value could be a 1v1 follow up with the most arrogant one... I think it'd get a shit load of views
@@ericomfg getting "a shit load of views" shouldn't be the goal... the goal should be changing hearts and minds. And sure, that *might* come with more views, but more views doesn't necessarily equal more minds changed. It could just as easily be more views from people who already agree. I don't think a 1 on 1 conversation with the most arrogant one is the right call. I'd rather see a 1 on 1 conversation with the LEAST arrogant one, so they are actually able to listen and understand. I feel like my goal is productive conversations, and your goal is catchy headlines and "owning the libs" or something.
@@CassTeaElle yeah we disagree. I prefer more eyes, more people convinced. It's how I was. It's objectively more people converted when 1000x the people see the arguments.
Great work at holding it down Hayden! Well done.
I’m a mother, I found your channel when I was 4 months pregnant and I love your content. Keep it up please.
Love this! I had two boys, and remember the passion felt for things when pregnant. Have a happy pregnancy! Being a mom is the best.
@@roxanne2977
Good for you, just don't pretend all women have the same life experiences or desires dear
@@roxanne2977 yes I deeply became passionate about the pro life movement during pregnancy. You just can’t deny it and people can do mental gymnastics all they want about it. But it’s life and it should be protected.
@@trumpbellend6717 When did any of us think all women have the same experiences or desires? Some women were able to be brainwashed to believe a certain group of humans is inferior, and some were not. Just like in the past when this happened.
Amen
I’m sorry this is too frustrating to watch. These students are low level thinkers. It might be mean to say, but they didn’t understand ANY of your arguments or thought exercises. What are they teaching students these days?
Exactly. I always try to be as respectful as possible, but it is literally just a fact that these people are too stupid to understand a single word he's saying. This entire conversation was pointless if they are too dull to understand that he isn't saying rape should be legal.
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces"
Matthew 7:6
The phrase is a metaphor that suggests that if you give something valuable to people who not only fail to understand its value, but hate what you say, they might trample over it and then attack you.
They don’t teach these days. They brainwash
Watching their attention spans deteriorate quicker than a minute sized hour-glass is so sad.
Really low. Does this school turn applications down, if so Id hate to see those people.
"can i finish" as she was interrupting... Classic
its always the "im still talking" because my head is about to explode
"If a woman decides to kill her 3 year old child, that should be allowed?" Girl- "But that never happens!" Ask Susan Smith about that.
or Andrea Yates
And Casey Anthony.
You can’t fix stupid
It happens sure, but no one is arguing for its legality 😆
@@BolitaBalls exactly the point
Thank you! God bless you!
Thank you Hayden for speaking the truth with boldness 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼praying for your strength and perseverance 💜❤️💙I’m in Canada BTW, and have been watching debates and apologetics to learn how to do what you:) also teaching my children to also be this voice, thank you Jesus! And thank you Hayden
A parasite by definition is a foreign species to the host. lol
even if that's true, it's a red herring argument; you're drawing attention to something that doesn't matter. If the parasite is Human, it still has dignity and other people have no right to end its life.
You are wrong
You are demented if you consider the offspring of a human or even an animal to be a parasite when it is in the earliest developmental phases of life.
@@adhvaynarayanan5648 parasite
[ par-uh-sahyt ]
Phonetic (Standard)
IPA
noun
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
@@adhvaynarayanan5648 realize liberal sites will conveniently change definitions because they do doesnt change the facts.
These people are insufferable. I know everyone says it to you, but Hayden your patience is incredible. Keep it up.
Lol, he needs the clicks, and you need to hate.
6:56 “you can’t force people to give up their bodily autonomy”. Except for the millions of men who are forced to fight and die on the battlefield for the U.S. military
Then she would reply _I am against it, no one should be forced to fight in a war._
@@hankova14you’ve watched your fair share of these videos no doubt 😂
@@adrianharry5336 Facts!🙈
And that they should take a vaccine or else.
We have an all volunteer military.
I could only listen to them not understand your arguments for 3:33 and then couldn't take it anymore
Exactly. These kinds of five-on-one screaming matches are never productive in any way. I much prefer Hayden's one-on-one discussions. These people literally can't even understand that he isn't advocating for legalizing rape... if they can't understand that, I'm sorry, but they are too freaking stupid to understand anything else he has to say.
How did that predict exactly what I’m doing too. I paused it at 3:48 and went to the comments to see if anyone else couldn’t even watch at this point. They can’t even make sense of his arguments. 😂
Yet you complain when we don't listen to you. Nice double standards
@@RealMarshallWalk3r we complain becuase you don’t understand arguments, you complain becuase your losing the argument, we are not the same.
"where are you posting this?"
"my camera, my choice"
“Not trying to imply that a baby is a parasite.. but isn’t a baby a parasite” can’t make this up 😂💀
Thank you for doing this on my campus, I evangelize in the student center. I may start doing this as well. Thank you for the inspo. God bless you ❤
She's got some kind of demon.....I hope she sees this and gets help.
Orrrr she’s just arguing w him? 🤣
@@BolitaBallsthese people make no valid arguments and act like small children, can’t even respectfully stand and listen to someone with another opinion speak is pretty pathetic, all while being rude condescending and a pathetic waste of breathe, and it has nothing to do with your opinion on abortion
@@BolitaBalls being an idiot is more fitting
Look at the forced birther dehumanize women - very typical
@@TraderWizeslavers don't deserve respect
It drives me freaking nuts how these people are so unable to follow any kind of logical reasoning that they think you are arguing that men should be able to rape women 🤦♀ the girl with the ponytail in the gray shirt, in particular, just cannot even begin to follow your logic enough to realize that you aren't advocating for that. It's so incredibly stupid. "WHY?? You have to question that?!" No, ma'am... no he doesn't. He's making a point. Use your freaking brain and your ears for two seconds, please, to actually listen and understand before you start freaking out over something that nobody is saying.
A person needs two things to admit their wrong; humbleness, and a heart seeking the truth instead of what they want to be true. Many don’t have either
See, to them it’s just a given that a man cannot rape a woman. There is no “why” for them. “It’s just wrong,” they’ll say. “Don’t you see that?” You’re right. They cannot follow the logic or defend their position.
@buddy_132 sad but true. I am praying for humility and soft hearts for my family on some things, but unfortunately it is their free will to choose whether or not to accept truth, so I can't pray for God to force it upon them.
@@CassTeaElle
There’s a reason God compares our work to planting seeds. Often time we won’t see any fruits in a person for a long time if ever in our lifetime. I preached the truth to my brother and he would get angry and thought I was crazy. It wasn’t until 7 years later he calls me and admits he was wrong; that he remembered the words I said to him all those years ago and he grew closer to God more than ever before. Your words and actions can have the same impact. With God all things are possible
@buddy_132 thank you for saying that. I know that to be true, but it can be discouraging after years of trying to get through to people. All I can do is pray for them.
You’re a saint with too much patience with these people
He needs the clickbait
Dudes taking on 1v7 lmao
It’s weird how women are so soft spoken alone, but become screeching banshees in groups. Reminds me of Halloween witch laughter in movies
@@buddy_132nice sexist sentiment, very standard amongst the women hating forced birther cult
If we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies, then why do tell them not to drink, smoke, do hard drugs, or take pills and remedies that cause birth defects?
It's called human rights, which you clearly refuse to understand.
"he is disrespectful by interrupting when we try to speak" says the ones interrupting him EVERY time he tries to say something. Projection much?
Also, "I'm not trying to imply that babies are parasites, but by definition wouldnt a fetus be a parasite...?" Wow, just, wow..
lady in the glasses thinks she the main character 🤣
😂😂 that's what I'm saying
It's called bring up *grape and *life of the mother for your full support of the other 99% of cases
It's called bringing up "late term" for your denial of support for the other 99% of cases
“LET HER SPPPEEEEAAAAAK” oh my goodness how do you not rage.
and they all interrupted him numerous times 😭😭
This was a hard watch, thanks for being so patient. Also check out Eastern Orthodoxy.
If your argument gets to neglect laws are not okay then you know you’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere
The sassy disingenuous clips from these women is a perfect reflection of society today. All the laughing and trolling to cope is hilarious.
It's a self defense mechanism for encountering push back against a deeply held belief supported by no thought or rationale.
@@Tricky_Nixonhuman rights are the rationale
Slavery isn't a human right.
Fact.
You lose.
One vs Many and still you held your ground. It's impressive how you were able to keep your composure when that lady started heckling. Hope you were able to plant some seeds in their hearts.
God bless you for your insane amount of patience. I don't think I could hold my composure like you do.
You're so back😄
new sub!!! i so wish i could be out there with you speaking on this. Halleluyah, THANK YOU for doing what you're doing!!!!
Thank you for standing on Christ 😊
"and you're gonna be patient" says the poster-child of hypocrisy?
I had no idea how much worse she was going to get!😅
Human rights aren't hypocrisy.
Glasses girl thought she was the angel of truth came in and accused you of everything she was doing.
Then Karen came in and started flapping, the cases when it is necessary to have an abortion are extremely rare.
This is such a good conversation for the students, they need to wake up!
That woman didn't want to stick around for long because she started feeling convicted about murdering her child.
I think you need to have a separate individual microphone so you can talk to one person at a time and avoid having 6 people yelling at you at once
Well done!!
Keep up the good work!! God bless you. I love the consistency in your logic. It's stunning to see the cognitive dissonance in full display here. Obviously not a group of thinkers, rather a group of programmed NPC's.
These days are sad. Just like in older times without prosthetics for amputees, it's sad that there's no way to repair the faulty logic so many people have today. Many people don't have the logical prerequisites to have an argument.
Hayden asks "If bodily autonomy is so important, why can't men r_pe women?", because if bodily autonomy is important, then if men aren't allowed to r_pe women, thereby violating the woman's bodily autonomy, then a woman shouldn't be allowed to violate the bodily autonomy of the human being inside her.
The students respond "So you think men should be able to r_pe women? That's what you just said!". Man these are sad times. I'm not sure if it's an intellectual, genetic issue that people can't surpass even through effort. Or, if it's a simple fix, where a couple-week logic class given in middle and high school would solve the issue. No papers needed, just a few debates. In order to graduate high school, you must be able to comprehend and partake in a logical debate. Perhaps an emotionally-charged one.
// "a woman shouldn't be allowed to violated the bodily autonomy of the human being inside her" //
A zygote doesn't have a "body" to violate dear. "Human being" is not a scientific term its a metaphysical concept and as such what attributes constitute a "human being" and when one becomes one is an entirely SUBJECTIVE determination.
A human zygote is human offspring. its stage of development does not lessen its status as being of the human species.
@@bertimusprime7900
A human $, perm is human offspring its stage of development does not lessen its status . What now ??
@@bertimusprime7900
Do I get to impose my subjective perspective onto you and demand you be thrown in jail for having a w, 3t Dre @m ??
@@bertimusprime7900 incorrect, DNA doesn't have rights.
People do.
Going to college clearly doesn't make you smart
It's not life vs choice it's life vs killing. Like up vs down. Not like up vs left. "pro choice" - What is the choice? To Kill? yes.
3 of them attacking you with nonsense arguments and you smoked them all lmao
They didn’t listen to what he said
God is a mental illness.
Brave. Handled yourself well and stayed composed, even when the demons in these people surfaced. Stay strong brother.
These kids need to take logic 101 class
Heck, a Logic for Dummies pamphlet would be a start, and be more on their comprehension level.
God isn't logic.
@@bertimusprime7900 slavery isn't logical.
@@RealMarshallWalk3r The fact that you completely missed his point on slavery makes me think you also need such a pamphlet.
These young people haven’t been taught to follow the rules of logic
You speak of "logic" but I suspect you think it "logical" that our moral status is the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible God called Yahweh 🤔?
That's an illogical conclusion.
Not sure if you’ll see this but this was an amazing watch! Pile ons can be so difficult and require a lot of quick wits, but you handled this one amazingly. Keep it up.
As an atheist I agree with Christians on the anti-abortion stance.
If the argument is, that a child never has a right to a woman's body, then the entirety of child neglect laws breaks down because in that case a child is not entitled to being breastfed and having sufficient attention in order not to perish.
I define a "child" differently than you dear
@@trumpbellend6717 A child is a human being below the age of puberty.
The fetus in the womb is a human being (+).
The fetus is below the age of puberty (+).
Thus the fetus can also be called a child. I mean we can fight about definitions, but the main point of my argument is that a human life can be entitled to another human's body and resources under certian conditions because we allocate special value to children and babies.
They are vulnerable as their life is dependent on other human beings and this dependence is none of their fault as nobody chooses to be conceived, thus exploiting this dependence by depriving them of the attention they need to survive is cruel and shouldn't be tolerated.
@@j.d.s.8132
Nope "human being" is not a scientific term its a metaphysical concept and as such what attributes constitute a "human being" and when one becomes one is an entirely subjective determination 🤫
@@j.d.s.8132
A human $, perm is alive, its a human "life" what now ? Do we demand the courts throw you in jail for having a W 3t Dre @m ?
@@j.d.s.8132
How does monozygotic twinning that occurs many weeks after fertilisation conform with the claims that a zygote is a "human" ??
I don’t understand how folks would actively advocate for their own fellow men’s non existent rather than advocating for social programs to provided all of us a right to life. Make it make sense
I don't understand how folk would conflate a clump of cells incapable of reasoning nor feeling pain and emotion with their "fellow men" ? 🙄🤭😅
The lady at minute 6:00 the pregnancy isn’t what was making you sick. Don’t lie.
6:50 'You can't force someone to give up bodily autonomy to save a life.' ...except when we say that healthcare is a human right and the government should rob you to pay for other people's healthcare. Mothers are different, though! They need to be allowed to murder their own babies but provide for strangers.
It's not a parasitic relationship; the baby makes the woman healthier.
// "Rob you to pay for other people's healthcare" //
Lol you seem confused dear, its about contributing to a pot that's used for common benefit. Would you say the money used to fund the police, or military or emergency services was "robbed" to pay for others protection dear ? 🙄
Also super convenient for her to not think a father working so he can be forced to pay child support doesn't count as giving up bodily autonomy. Gotta love casual misandry. She doesn't understand hypocrisy; she can't even understand that two contradicting things can't coexist.
@bertimusprime7900
No dear with a "CHILD" that has been born, there ARE moral obligations because it has *PERSONHOOD* ,,, conciousness, intelligence, self awareness, it feels pain and exhibits emotions like love and fear. This is the differentiation that you totally disregard!!
We stamp upon ants without a thought, throw lobsters alive into boiling water. But we do not treat animals that demonstrate the above listed attributes in the same way ( dogs for example ) Because we rightly assign creatures with such attributes more "moral weight".
That's what this whole debate is about,,
A fetus does NOT have those attributes and qualities "initially", they develop throughout gestation. To pretend they have them at conception is just as dishonest as the denial of them just before a birth.
There can be no disputing that personhood occurs somewhere along this journey, I have no doubt. But please stop with the religious ignorant _"human being at conception"_ nonsense when determining precisely where.
Let's look to the science for the answers on brain, sensory and emotional development. Then look to our hearts and intellect and incorporate the science to reach a sensible rational moral conclusion.
@@trumpbellend6717 The animals you listed will never grow into an creature with the kind of intelligence a human has. A zygote will become a "person" as you define it. No other animal or creature on earth has ever created a society or culture. Humans are not the same as animals. I can't believe that has to be typed out...
Besides all of that, there are many humans who lack those qualities, be it due to defect, injury, what have you. It does not reduce their moral value, or make them less of a human, or "person." It makes them vulnerable.
@@trumpbellend6717 , science is already settled and has been for a long time: human life starts at fertilization. Even if I were arrogant enough to include your other criteria as prerequisites for value, you cannot say when any of them start, partly because every human develops at a different rate and partly because, as technology improves, we observe these things sooner and sooner. Admit that Satan is your daddy and you are evil. Stop pretending to be smart or moral.
There’s some evil in those girls. You hear their murmuring when he tries to talk? Scary.
More sexism
6:54 This point is invalidated by the draft
Dang, everything just goes over everyone's head.
🙏🇺🇸 I pray for these people in our country. They clearly purposefully make bad faith arguments they know what they’re claiming is wrong and a horrendous abomination. Our home is down the gutter🙁
Yes, and people like you have put us there.
It’s even Brain dead 😵 brainwashed 😵💫 replies 😞
@@brandonivy7602
@@brandonivy7602 what a laughable comment
Good job man, keep it up
She brings up a life and death non-elective abortion to justify elective abortions. The evilness of some people
When you think a baby is a parasite? yikes…
When you think a zygote is a person? yikes...
@@trumpbellend6717 Oo, a false equivalency, never heard that before! A human zygote is a human, and I believe in human rights, no matter their physical or mental state.
@@bertimusprime7900
Great I think a human $, perm is a human, so what now ?? Are you going to use some subjective and arbitrarily developmental stage attributes to claim they are not, just like those you denigrate do ?
@@bertimusprime7900
How many billions of these innocent "human lives" have you taken dear ? 🤫
@@bertimusprime7900
Do you deny they are alive ? What kind of "life" are they if not human ?? 🤔
I don’t know if they understand objective morality. At the end all be all, feelings don’t define truth, God defines truth.
"Truth" is demonstrated dear not asserted, its that which best conforms with the FACTS and EVIDENCE and has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's "faith" in a God. 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"*
🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ??
If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept
Objective morality does not exist, even with a god.
@@trumpbellend6717 It's objective because you can ask him who he is.
So who has all truth?
1. God
2. The majority
3. You
If your answer is 2 or 3, then in actuality its YOU and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear.
@@44ARISEandSHINE44
Lol I take from your response that English is not your first language. Can you please get someone fluent in your particular dialect of gibberish to translate it, then repost it so I can respond properly.
no point even talking to people like this, they are completely unwilling to engage in a rational manner
Yep, I find most indoctrinated Christians like Hayden are unwilling to engage in rational discourse
We still get a lot of objections in our culture today.
Here are some objections to absolute truth...
1. There is no truth!
2. You can’t know truth!
3. All truth is relative!
4. It’s true for you but not for me!
5. No one has the truth!
6. You ought not judge!
As Christians if we can’t refute these objections then we can’t say the Bible is true.
The way to refute these claims is to apply the claim to itself.
For example: If someone says they can’t speak a word of English, while speaking English. What would you say? I would say “Didn’t you SAY that in English? So that statement they made is self defeating. It’s logically self defeating.
Something that is practically self defeating would be for me to say, “my parents had no kids that lived.” Well, I have to be here to say that.
Or “my brother is an only child.”
Or “everything I say is a lie.”
Or “all generalizations are false.”
This shows that the person making the claim has no ground to stand on.
When people utter self defeating statements, you can show them their argument has no ground to stand on and they plummet to the ground in a heap. The entire argument collapses.
So when someone says “there is no truth”, I would say “Is THAT true?”
Just turn the claim on itself.
Is it true that there’s no truth?
Because if it’s true there’s no truth, then the claim “there is no truth” can’t be true. But it claims to be true.
This is what we call a self defeating statement. It doesn’t meet its own standard.
It violates the law of non-contradiction. It’s just a fundamental law of all logic.
Unfortunately in a lot of schools today we don’t teach logic anymore. Opposite ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
This is a good way to help being a lie detector. We have a built in lie detector called the Law of Non Contradiction. A self defeating statement has no ground on which to stand.
Where did the laws of logic originate dear ??
@ There are many things that are not material that we know exist. One of those things is the Laws of Logic. These are immaterial things that exist. The Laws of Logic exist independent of human minds.
So the question is, “How can the laws of logic exist without some material function enacting their behavior?”
Let me give you a thought experiment:
Let’s suppose there are NO HUMAN MINDS on earth. There is just a single rock on earth. Which was the real life case for a certain period of time before humans existed.
If I say there are no human minds on the earth, would that statement be true? Yes.
So we know the laws of logic exist independent of human minds. In fact, we couldn’t even communicate unless we were accessing the same laws of logic. So if you had your “private” idea of the laws of logic and I had my “private” idea of the laws of logic, there’s no way we could even communicate.
We are trafficking in immaterial reality right now to even talk to one another and that immaterial reality in my view is GROUNDED IN THE NATURE OF GOD. So it is grounded in a mind (not the human mind), but it is grounded in THE GREAT MIND. Not just our minds. Our minds use that as a bridge to other minds BUT we humans DID NOT create that bridge. That bridge is what we mean by GOD’S NATURE. So what I’m saying is if there were NO MATERIAL, GOD WOULD STILL EXIST.
God wasn’t created. That’s the point. This being that we call God always existed. So things like the laws of math and the laws of logic are DERIVATIVES OF GOD’S NATURE. He’s the Orderer of all things. So logic, math, why we have a sensible world that orderly, are EXPRESSIONS or EFFECTS of the Orderer. God is actually NEEDED for science. I know this sounds crazy to atheists, BUT without an orderly universe there would no way we could even do science.
There must be an Orderer for that.
@@trumpbellend6717 There are many things that are not material that we know exist. One of those things is the Laws of Logic. These are immaterial things that exist. The Laws of Logic exist independent of human minds.
So the question is, “How can the laws of logic exist without some material function enacting their behavior?”
Let me give you a thought experiment:
Let’s suppose there are NO HUMAN MINDS on earth. There is just a single rock on earth. Which was the real life case for a certain period of time before humans existed.
If I say there are no human minds on the earth, would that statement be true? Yes.
So we know the laws of logic exist independent of human minds. In fact, we couldn’t even communicate unless we were accessing the same laws of logic. So if you had your “private” idea of the laws of logic and I had my “private” idea of the laws of logic, there’s no way we could even communicate.
We are trafficking in immaterial reality right now to even talk to one another and that immaterial reality in my view is GROUNDED IN THE NATURE OF GOD. So it is grounded in a mind (not the human mind), but it is grounded in THE GREAT MIND. Not just our minds. Our minds use that as a bridge to other minds BUT we humans DID NOT create that bridge. That bridge is what we mean by GOD’S NATURE. So what I’m saying is if there were NO MATERIAL, GOD WOULD STILL EXIST.
God wasn’t created. That’s the point. This being that we call God always existed. So things like the laws of math and the laws of logic are DERIVATIVES OF GOD’S NATURE. He’s the Orderer of all things. So logic, math, why we have a sensible world that orderly, are EXPRESSIONS or EFFECTS of the Orderer. God is actually NEEDED for science. I know this sounds crazy to atheists, BUT without an orderly universe there would no way we could even do science.
There must be an Orderer for that.
@@gorillaz_jbi
First thing, I asked a very specific question but you did not answer. Instead you say they are "derivatives of God's nature" which nonsensical
@@gorillaz_jbi
// "there are many things that are not material that we know exist" //
Lol of course dear they exist as metaphysical "CONCEPTS" from the mind of men things like numbers, morality, and gods, absent a human mind such "concepts" no longer exist
If you don’t look too closely it just looks like an argument, but you do move most people from “they aren’t human, who cares” to “nobody likes abortion, but sometimes it’s necessary” which is not true, but it’s progress
The ladies are extremely immature.
Says a slaver
@@RealMarshallWalk3r Where did that idea come from?
the people you are talking to are hopeless but thank you for trying bro
Gosh, the "let me speak" are intolerable. It's nothing but a power trip for them.
This was wayyyyyyyyy unfair. There were only 10 of them.
I really wish they can learn to be respectful and actually have a meaningful conversation.
They only demand respect but don't give it.
Slavers don't deserve respect.
0% I could show the amount of patience you just demonstrated
These kids have never encountered these arguments..
"I think youre using an emotionally heated topic.." says the side that ALWAYS brings up the edge case of rape in the abortion debate 😬 projection much?
OK, I'll bite. There two, and only two, situations where an abortion is justified.
1. Where the pregnancy is unplanned or unwanted.
2. Where continuing the pregnancy would jeopardize the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Here is an example of an abortion law in a country other than the USA.
Less than 22 weeks, informed consent of the pregnant woman only.
Beyond 22 weeks, with the approval of one or doctors.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
@@marcuscook3852 Stating that pro-choicers often bring up edge cases in a debate doesn't mean we're unaware pro-choicers are for murdering to avoid inconvenience, it's hardly a strong point to debate.
Would you describe the 1% of abortions that occur late term as "edge case" dear ? I only ask because so called "pro-lifere's" ALWAYS bring them up and get all _"emotionally heated"_ about them 🙄
@@marcuscook3852 1: "Genoc!de is ok because they are undesirables." Classic.
@@emptywhy There are many reasons for a woman to choose abortion, and very few are concerned with inconvenience.
I like the sit down at the table better. This was chaotic.
Those students are so galactically irrational and arrogant. There are ways to arrive at the conclusion that its wrong to rape, even if you claim to be atheist (and most people know its wrong anyway). However, God also tells us not to kill and that's what makes me curious as to what their positions are on the unborn. I'm guessing they're for human rights... yet would they be for a mother ignoring those rights and having an abortion doctor killing their unborn daughter or son even if there's no health problem in the baby or mother?
// "God yes us not to kill" //
Sorry didn't he allegedly do this to every baby, child, animal on the planet, saving only 8 on a boat with a few animals?
He allegedly spent most of the old testament doing precisely this or ordering it 🤔
_"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes Completely destroy them, the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded you"_
*Deuteronomy 20 : 16 -17*
You are aware that in the Biblical narrative, God warned humanity about the flood possibly up to 120 years in advance and also prepared a way of escape? For all we know, had more people been humble, and repented, God could easily have prepared more than one vessel to escape in.
@@switzerlandful
Lol how quickly your narrative changes from one of _"killing babies is always wrong"_ to one of _"well it can be moral to kill babies dependant upon how much warning time was afforded and how humble and repentant their parents and grandparents are"_ 🤭😅🤣🤣
I'm a christian pro-lifer, but you can't make the pro-life position dependent on christianity. We live in a society with people of various religious beliefs, and we must find some way to derive the value of fetal life from outside the Bible. We need an ethical system that is accepted by all people, whether christian or not. If we borrow from christian theology to construct this ethical system, we will need to provide secular arguments for why this ethical system is correct, in order to use it in a secular society.
Regarding the sanctity of the fetus, we can treat human neurones as sacred. All born human beings exhibit consciousness emerging from the human brain. Human brains are composed of human neurons, which are the necessary cells for consciousness. As christians, we should consider the soul to inhabit these neurons, but for a secular society, the neurons should be treated as the most sacred thing. Since the fetus already possesses neurons very early in the pregnancy, its conscious experience should be considered equivalent to that of born humans, since it has an equivalent capacity for pain.
It’s no wonder they don’t want you posting these videos for others to see, look how they act
@trumpbellend6717
An argument for the existence of God - something rather than nothing
To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence-why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” -something coming from nothing-a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices-an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, HONEST scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
@trumpbellend6717
An argument for the existence of God - knowing the Creator
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything that is logically possible.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly.
He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1)
He is powerful (Jeremiah 32:17)
He is eternal (Psalm 90:2)
He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7)
He is timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6)
He is immaterial (John 4:24)
He is personal (Genesis 3:9)
He is necessary (Colossians 1:17)
He is infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4)
He is diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19)
He is intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5)
He is purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11)
He is moral (Daniel 9:14)
He is caring (1 Peter 5:6-7)
@trumpbellend6717
An argument for the existence of God - the flaws of atheism
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes-“no god,” which is what “atheist” means-is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition-one that denies the existence of something-cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
@trumpbellend6717
An argument for the existence of God - the conclusion
So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).
These students have never had an opposite thought. Its called cognitive dissonance. When their entire belief system is completely shattered and they cant understand what just happened. Also, do these colleges NOT teach how to think opposite ways?? This is absolutely disgusting. These women need their hormones checked.
You project a lot of hate and insecurity onto others.
she interrupts multiple times and then complains that you're interrupting her when you weren't even talking over her LOL ignorance
You can see how fundamentally different these people are, all of their arguments and statements are solely based on assumptions.
Quite literally everything these pro abortionists say even as something simple as a camera is assumed to be wrong think by these people.
It’s impossible to argue with someone when from the get go think your a horrible person, you are beneath them.
Incorrect, presumptuous one
@trumpbellend6717
What made God?
“Who or what created God?”
God is eternal. He did not come from anywhere.
That may sound “unscientific” or a way of avoiding the question, IN TRUTH, OBSERVATION AND REASON declare otherwise.
When you ask who created God or where did god come from, that is assuming that God had a CAUSE. By definition an ETERNAL SPIRIT, or everlasting God, cannot logically have a cause.
Asking about Gods cause is as incoherent as asking “why Matter is eternal?” Matter is not eternal. Matter is no more an eternal essence without a cause than God is a physical being with a cause.
Asking where did God come from? Is like asking “When did eternity start?” By definition eternity never began. Eternity is without beginning and end. By definition, SO IS GOD.
From what we observe in nature matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. We refer to this as 1st law of thermodynamics.
Evolutionists allege the universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter, 13-16 billion years ago. Yet they never provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of this “ball of matter”.
An attempt was made a few years ago when evolutionist David Shiga said, “The quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all, instead of nothing?”
The fact is, a logical naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. IT CANNOT EXIST so long as the first law of thermodynamics is true. Matter and energy cannot create themselves.
Since the universe exists and cannot have created itself, then the universe is either eternal or something or someone outside of the universe must have created it.
VERY FEW scientists say that the universe is eternal. There would be no point in trying to explain the beginning of the universe with the Big Bang for example, if scientists believed it had always existed.
What’s more is the second law of thermodynamics, matter and energy become less usable over time, has led scientists to conclude that the universe had not always existed. So it’s not eternal.
So why don’t the laws of thermodynamics or the law of causality apply to God? Because these scientific laws apply to nature. By definition, God is not natural and so logically is not subject to the laws of nature.
So if Matter is not eternal and it cannot create itself, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that something, Or someone outside of nature, Who is supernatural caused the material universe and everything in it.
Christians call this the eternal God. Because He is from everlasting to everlasting.
Why did they stop teaching logic 101 in our schools?
they are NOT that dumb, they PLAY dumb
The old women's story is complete bull$hit, the other one does hold life sacred and all of them are vile.
I wanted to hear Hayden's response on the "forced organ donation" argument.
I really liked that video of you arguing about abortion with that chill guy close to a clock inside a campus. For some reason when people are in a group they behave very agressively.
College sucks
Make the same arguments, but leave religion out of it! You’re already defeating yourself, despite having the right thoughts on this topic.
I love the irony of the Clint Eastwood western music from the jews harp trying to be used as a distraction while you are fighting off bad arguments like an Eastwood hero character fighting off bad guys.
These people are so entitled and narcissistic and insufferable. God bless you for being able to go Into the lions den because they just make me rage haha
Do women have the right to decide who gets to live and who dies.
These types of discussions in these types of settings are nigh on fruitless.
This generation sucks.
Hayden, did i miss something? Did you change your position from abolitionist to pro life? If yes, have you explained this change somewhere?
I'm guessing he was just using short hand. Considering how they were ganging up on him, the distinction would've fallen on deaf ears, probably more so then the basic logic he was using.
He cooked everyone bro lol
These students are so ignorant
These are scorners...
Some of the students were really respectful but some just assumed you had the worse of intentions and said you were here just for clout. Address the arguments and not assume something without any proof.
Wrong, X is not WRONG just because God says so.
X is wrong for the REASON God said so.
He did not just flip a coin and say, "heads = murder is wrong tails = right".
He has a reason that justifies His moral position that makes it true murder is wrong.
For the Christian, it's enough that God said so.
But for the rest, you must give them the reason God said so.
The atheist can NOT Give you a reason y murder is wrong. They only have opinion or preference, neither govern what is true.
X is not wrong or right just bc in your opinion it is. Without God you can not justify your opinion why X is wrong or right with REASON.
Thus you are a FOOL, that is one who operates without reason unable to justify why they think what they think.
You may say it's about well being, but who's opinion determines what WELL is..... Hitler?
You may say society determines what is right by passing laws.
Was slavery right when it was legal?
U can't be consistent, all you have is your opinion or preference of you believe not in God .
Why is murder wrong?
Give me a reason and not your opinion or preference....... u can't. You operate without reason.
Yeah that was a silly thing for Hayden to say.
@catalyst3713 well, he is right to a point. It's true murder is wrong. It's true God said murder was wrong. The Christian understands God is ultimate truth. What ever He says, it truth. So for the beleiver, murder is wrong bc God says so. For them, that's enough. But to the unbeliever they do not recognize God's authority. It means nothing to them that God said so. Therfore you must use reason to convince them. And the reason God said murder is wrong is in fact why it is wrong. Problem is, most don't know why God said murder is wrong bc the fact He said so is good enough for them.
The atheist can not give you REASONS for their morality. All they have is opinion or preference. And yet by their standards that's not enough. That is, they will not give you all their money just bc in your opinion they ought to. Yet they expect us to agree with them based on nothing but their opinion or preference.
Ex: i don't want to be murdered so I don't murder = PREFERENCE.
I dont want to live in a society where ppl are murdering each other = PREFERENCE
We ought to live in a way that i feel promotes my definition of well being = OPINION/PREFERENCE
ASK, why is murder wrong?
Bc it causes pain = (in my opinion causing pain is wrong) . That's not reason, it's opinion.
Or
Murder is wrong bc society determines it is = OPINION of a group, still opinion.
Truth is not governed by opinion or preference. Thus in order to justify your opinion murder is truly wrong, you must have REASON.
Atheist abandon reason. The Bible says the FOOL says there is no God. A fool operates without reason, they certainly can not give u reason that justifies their beliefs or actions.
All of their answerscan be narrowed down to , "bc i said so, or prefer it . "
They can not be consistent either. Ex: X is wrong bc it's illegal.
When asked if slavery was ok when it was legal they say no. Ppl without reason or logic can not be consistent.
@dude8223 What is "true" can also be based on opinons. Only facts are immutable.
@TheAlanRaptor is that true? What facts support your premise? Justify why that is true.
This format is by far the worst.
Hayden, Abolition not regulation/anarchy.
hayden's a pro lifer now or is that title just for clicks?
I wonder if you should invite some people for 1:1 scheduled debates, instead of being rude in a crowd
I feel like most of Hayden's content is 1 on 1 conversations, which are usually MUCH more productive. This kind of 5 on 1 shouting match is never fruitful. I've never seen a single good thing come from this style of "debate," if you can even call it a debate when one side is just screaming and not listening to/understanding anything the other person is saying.
@CassTeaElle the value is the confrontation, the further value could be a 1v1 follow up with the most arrogant one... I think it'd get a shit load of views
@@ericomfg getting "a shit load of views" shouldn't be the goal... the goal should be changing hearts and minds. And sure, that *might* come with more views, but more views doesn't necessarily equal more minds changed. It could just as easily be more views from people who already agree. I don't think a 1 on 1 conversation with the most arrogant one is the right call. I'd rather see a 1 on 1 conversation with the LEAST arrogant one, so they are actually able to listen and understand.
I feel like my goal is productive conversations, and your goal is catchy headlines and "owning the libs" or something.
@@CassTeaElle yeah we disagree. I prefer more eyes, more people convinced. It's how I was.
It's objectively more people converted when 1000x the people see the arguments.
@ericomfg I prefer more people convinced as well... I'm just not convinced that more eyes on an unfruitful screaming match is going to accomplish that