This will be seen as a personal attack to many. It's really not. I'm trying to explain why it is that some people seem to see zero potential evidence for God and others see evidence for God pretty much everywhere. There's a fundamental divide in how we are thinking about everything we perceive. What should be obvious (but never seems like it is) is that I am not trying to talk about every single skeptic who has ever lived. But this seems to represent enough of the skeptics I've met that it's worth talking about. An interesting experiment can be done to show what I mean. Think of a former skeptic you know. Is it true that at one time they thought there was pretty much zero evidence for God? Is it also true that when they came to believe in God they saw tons of evidence for God all over the place? Yeah, that's what I mean. It's like a switch got flipped on. It's like eyes were opened. All this is not to dodge any thoughtful discussions of things like the fine tuning arguments, the contingency arguments, the prophecy arguments, the argument from consciousness, or the many other lines of evidence we can talk about which point to God. But I really do think that for those who see the world around them clearly, the evidence for God is overwhelming. My FULL unedited answer can be found here - ua-cam.com/video/12fimxto67E/v-deo.html
But can you tell me what has been painted just by touch? In a similar way it could be argued that evidence around us is within reach but we have to have faith to interpret that evidence as something divine, or else our interpretation would be limited by human understanding. What if you felt something with your eyes closed and said "I can feel the texture, smell the oils, and follow the frame around the perimeter of this object; but since seeing is believing and I cannot see what's in front of me, it must not be a painting." That's the point being made, where there's evidence of the inherent beauty of the world that points to a greater force but since our understanding of some old guy materializing from the clouds in front of us hasn't come true, some people see that as evidence there is no God. That too is based on the reasoning that our understanding of what God is happens to be the truth of the matter, whereas the better interpretation is He is beyond our mortal understanding since the concept of a creator of the Universe who has inherently good intentions is too vast for our understanding. That's why we make theories on how the Universe came to be, since we seek a narrative that fits our own understanding. But it's foolish to say that since you can't see the object in front of you (even though all the evidence points to a painting), it must be something that can only be justified without sight.
@@aceup1 I understand what you are trying to convey here. But unfortunately there is a big difference between an object that can be perceived (by the reflection of the different light wavelengths that land on your retina sending a electrical charge into the back of your brain, making it create a picture in the surface of your brain), and an ideology, passed by people thousands of years ago in the form of a collection of books, notes and messeges. The 1st is something perceived, the second one is not able to be perceived, it's just a never ending chain of people saying "trust me bro"
@@chillychillicus5629 But that line of reasoning assumes that the only evidence that points to a Creator is the generational belief in one, where God was created centuries ago to explain the Universe. However, that's not the only evidence for God. Like I was saying with the painting metaphor, your interpretation is that religions know it's a painting because other blind people told them that's what it is, but that disregards all the **other** evidence for a Creator. Like I said, rather than just taking a religious leader's word for it, there's evidence in the texture, the frame, the smell, and other features you can determine without sight that point to the object being a painting. In the same way, the video is arguing that there is overwhelming evidence of a benevolent force because of the beauty around us, our ability to have emotions and souls, and our morality, all of which point even just a little to a greater being that you can perceive the effect of without taking religious leaders' word for it. The video isn't arguing strictly for the existence of God, nor am I; the real argument is to reframe our perception of evidence within the world around us, and whatever conclusion that provides, it's not based solely on 'taking their word for it' (just like taking the scientists for their word when a new theory is announced)
@@aceup1 as I said, those two things can't make a good analogy since they vary greatly. A metaphor or an analogy, is a fine way to explain something to someone but it's not by any chance a logical statement or a factual one. (Unless you are comparing things with only common variables). To not drag this too long, What I am trying to convey is that this video used a metaphor as a way of persuasion rather than a way of explanation of it's reasoning. And that's not including the fact he took an opinion which is wrong (we can't explain love, nature etc), and used it as a statement to build his reasoning. Tl.dl video was meh, points made were meh, because he started with a wrong statement and then used a metaphor (that do not work at the specific problem) to build a reasoning.
@@aceup1 but we have thousands of explanations for why humans act good. And none of them need a god. Most of them have to do with what kind of animal humans are. We are social animals that means we survive in groups and not alone. Acting good just means pleasing the group your living in. Because being shunned and thrown out means death. Beauty is subjective there are people who find decaying body’s and mold growing beautiful. That is not anything that proofs a god
@@Dont_Stare_I_Will_Stare_Back So using a sense of feeling justifies something you can't see. Explain how that's different from some believer's claims to feel guidance, or hear a voice, or sense a right and wrong choice or presence and such.
@@Undomaranel our five senses are proven however even mentally deranged people can hear voices "guiding" them. That's the best way i can counter your argument. I'm catholic but the teachings we're taught these days feel forced and makes us feel dependant on God, of course thats just my opinion.
The fool says in his heart, “there is no God”. Quote from a 4,000 year old scroll of a king of a nation that was prophesied/predicted 1,000 years beforehand in a scroll written 5,000 years ago.
@@rprestarri We made laws long before jesus or the bible. They literally chisled laws in stone for centuries. Hell even the most brutal tribes had laws for murder, theft and rape. Long before jesus and all across the globe that had zero interaction with the middle east
So your argument is “assume god is real and only then can I prove to you that god is real”? Really? That’s the best you can do? Might be convincing for everyone already inside your echo chamber but won’t do much for anyone else
Yes, it's really just about the point of view, for every good you see, there is one bad, so following the metaphor, you may open your eyes, but you tunnel vision on the things you WANT to see, the things that prove your point. This counter argument (in my opinion) is just as logical. I personally don't really have any problems with religious people, in fact, most my family is religious, but i feel like that this discussion is pointless. There is always a counter argument. I think that instead of living in a world of assumptions we should embrace the lack of knowledge we have on the universe. I know im rambling about this too much at this point, so to end; everyone can have the beliefs they want to have, my mind can't accept anything that has this much contradictions in it
The argument should then have been how real you're as a human being? How real and trustworthy your conscience is? or How REAL the obsolete theory of evolution was? Would this be an extremely baseless and confused echo chamber for a philosophical starting point?
If I’m in a room with a painting and am told to prove it exists with my eyes closed, all I have to do is feel around and I WILL find it eventually. I also know that paintings are things that can exist and could be found within a room. Neither of these things can apply to most gods and ESPECIALLY your god. All that evidence you think points to your god has legitimate, quantifiable relationships to reality that require no supernatural source at all. You’ve essentially placed me in a completely empty room blindfolded, ordered me to find the bed and call me a fool for failing to do so. When I protest you tell me the bed is intangible and I should just feel where it is. What honest person wouldn’t think that to be a pointless exercise?
If you are placed in a normal living room that you never saw and was told to find the painting, how with your eyes closed, can you differ the feeling of a painting with a picture or mantle decorations or whatever else? If you have your eyes closed to reality you won’t be able to tell the difference of anything. That is what sin does and it’s because of sin corrupt thinking that makes you blind to what is but Christ made a way out so repent and turn to Him. If you have questions I can help get a better understanding.
@@user-ly2xw8to3t If there is, in fact, a painting in the room I'm in then even with my eyes closed I will eventually find it, by process of elimination if nothing else. What it feels like or how it differs from the other wall decorations doesn't matter aside from assisting in the elimination process. Sin, both the concept and application, is utterly useless to any individual living in our shared reality. For it to matter you first have to prove there's a God for that sin to offend. If I have any questions it would be to ask for any evidence you have for the existence of that being. Establish that and then we can move forward, and we'll see whom will have the better understanding at the end.
@@user-ly2xw8to3t you will probably be able to tell that it is a painting because of it's texture. Also I don't think it's that people who believe in god suddenly have their eyes open to evidence but that they are interpreting the world as evidence. Something existing isn't proof of that something being made by someone, it's just proof that the something is existing. It also shows no proof of specifically the Christian god creating it, it could be the hindu gods or even some god/gods that are unknown
@@hapmon8114Good point, because what Christian's seem to think is that everything had to be made by something, for them it's god. But then what made god? And then what made god's creator? It's a endless cycle.
@@theultimitelifeform8548 whether your trans or straight, God is looking out for you. Turn to Christ Jesus and disregard your sinful past. Your sexuality and your social status, your friends, and community can not save you from God’s judgement, only Jesus Christ.
I'm an atheist I try not to talk about religion because it nearly never kinders a healthy debate so I just don't talk about people's religious beliefs but I don't like people to tell me what to or not to believe in I'm not saying anything about youre argument because generally it nearly always is religious people who fall into cults
It’s crazy to me how many Christians will dump the “you just think it’s not true because you don’t want it to be true” on you when they just think it’s true because they want it to be true
Most likely because UA-cam figured you would leave a comment on the video. Which you did. Looks like the algorithm worked. And now that you watched the video and commented on it you probably will or will have seen more.
This is why people scoff at the historical evidence for God, but believe all the other history we've discovered using evidence way more speculative than that. They don't even believe the evidence is real they're in such denial.
@@JamesRichardWiley you not personally feeling his presence is not evidence he isn't there. If you go to an art show, you don't say look at that beautiful painting, a random explosion must have popped off and this is what happened! No, you ask who painted it. Look at the stars, how can you argue the constellations weren't intentionally designed? You may be overthinking this, there is an intelligent designer, God, and he wrote a letter to us called the Bible that reveals he is the creator. At death or rapture (for some), he will judge us for how we've lived on this earth. The concept is incredibly simple, people try to make it far harder than it is.
The issue is that historical evidence of anything and everything is doubted until scientific clear evidence can prove it. A lot of historical stuff not related to religion is still doubted up to today. It’s just that with god, we don’t really have much solid scientific evidence of his existence. Sure there is the bible, but that is made up of many books translated more times than anyone remembers, and was written by people claiming god told them what to write. There were people in temples in Ancient Greece and Rome that were said to receive messages from god, but the temples were also in an area with a lot of natural gas that got them high (as well as them burning plants that had similar effects). There are endless possibilities for the reasoning of anything, and in truth we do not have an answer for all of it. Thus, we have religions that we believe in to satiate the need to have a reason or creator. I’m not denying the possibility of a god (most atheist aren’t), I’m just not taking a belief, as a fact. With god people have worked backwards from everything in life to a possible beginning that doesn’t have much genuine or undeniable evidence. You can’t take everything you see and feel as evidence because it is a result without clear cause. I can say green is the my favourite colour, therefor it was made by this character that I love, but that doesn’t make it true or mean it’s proof. God is a possibility, not an undeniable truth. Believe in what you will, I will respect you for it (hey, there is the possibility you could be right), but I think most people that don’t believe just want live life discovering new evidence and causes for creation for themselves (or they’re like me and just don’t really care how we came to be because we’re gonna be gone at some point so who cares). Also I’m not trying to be confrontational or anything, my writing just sounds like that sometimes, sorry. Have a good day( or night?)!
i've talked to many atheist myself, i had some tell me that common sense is overrated, i have some tell me that the bible supported the flat earth theory one even gave the original word which actually meant circle, I've had a lot atheist throw they own under the bus like Hitler one even told me that Mao was a Christian i had one tell me that Jospeh stalin was a Christian, i debated a lot of people who believed in evolution but when i asked for evidence they couldn't give me none. its alot of atheist so blind and bias to they whole belief system just saying.
The first time God was able to prove His power to me didn't happen UNTIL I asked Him to!! It was silent, in my head, and I felt a little silly talking to a God I wasn't sure existed. But after that small moment of humility and openness God was like "LOL BET WATCH THIS" and did so many miracles in the following weeks I could no longer deny Him.
@@bleirdo_dude Dopamine doesn't cause you to hear a voice (that being of the Holy Spirit) which predicts the future without fail during prayer. I spent most of my life atheist and some years as a witch; I need evidence to believe something is real. Dopamine can't even come close to doing the things God has done in my life. They are supernatural events
Genuine question: why is God only associated with beauty and morality and all those good things, but not with the horrible realities of life like suffering, crime, unfairness? Do I look at that and tell myself that someone who supposedly loves me made me live in the cruel world he created and might continue tormenting me even worse after my death - and that that's a good thing? To me it seems that faith in a god is just the expression of our hope for a greater good, but I simply can't be that optimistic...
I don't really like this guys analogy or content at all but if you actually want an answer and aren't just the edgy "I'm too enlightened to believe in God" I'll give you a genuine answer. He isn't only in the best of things. In fact I would say you only find him in the worst of things. There's an old proverb of the footprints in the sand: while walking along side god a man looked back and saw that the hardest moments in his life there was only one set of footsteps, outraged he turned to the Lord and demanded to know why, why had he abandoned him when he needed him most. And god responded; child you were never alone. Those are the moments I carried you. God exists in everything, if you want to be more removed and pseudo scientific about it you could say that god isn't so much the hope for a better day (although honestly even if he was what's the big issue with that?) It's the innate will within all living creatures to keep going even when times are tough and it all seems hopeless. Even when there is only despair and ugliness and pain you keep going and that's because god is within you helping you push forward and weather the storm.
@@laurene988 that was a lot of baseless assumptions. Really. you not only assume the existence of a deity and present 0 testable claims, you also assume his gender, and his behaviour. What's next? Claims about the AFTERLife? That you heard from living mortals? An almighty AND good magic dude putting ebola into children. That god concept is ridiculous. Good OR almighty. Then it is possible. And still unproven.
Or, or, hear me out here, touch the painting, the painting exists right there, just because your eyes are closed doesn't mean the painting disappears, you could walk towards the painting and feel it, you can't do that with what you assume to be a god, so your explanation has no correlation.
The problem is that it does, from a given perspective. It is about what classes as evidence. If the only evidence you have is your eyes then it isn't hard to be deceived......go forth and touch the paining to find out it is a fancy projection, or a forgery.....but if you trust your eyes 100% you have no reason to ask the question.....
@@75ur15 But you should never trust your eyes 100%. Likewise, you shouldn't trust that "everything that exists" is evidence for God just because Christians say so. There needs to be actual evidence for God in order to believe in God. Not the other way around.
@@kylerichardson1242 been on vacation no net, in Port with internet for now; double be offended if I don't respond for a few days after, That was my point, the fact that op trusted until their eyes were closed and sought to verify only after was my point. If the existence of the painting mattered (beyond hey, that's pretty) then other means of verification not just of its actual existence but also of authenticity, say for purchase. Trusting eyes 100% is a bad idea....we are in agreement.
Mike, your analogy does not hold. In case of the painting, all people in the room see the same painting, as soon as they open their eyes. In case of religion, they describe very different gods as soon as they "open their eyes".
this is very far from the truth. I am in a fine arts class right this very moment and I can tell you people most DEFINITELY do not see the "same" paintings my friend.
You can make an argument for a painting being in a room without sight. You can touch it, because paint has a different texture to empty canvas. That should be pretty undeniable proof. Part of proving something is searching for more proofs that confirm your argument. If everything you try points to the same answer, you can be pretty confident that the answer is right
If you have never seen or been near a painting though, would it really be "undeniable" proof then? That seems like a more fitting start for the analogy.
@@stonewolf5613 if you've never seen a painting, then this analogy completely breaks down. Because the question moves from proving a thing's existence to describing what the thing is
"To have proof for god, you need to first believe in god." Then why would I need proof? This argument will just get people to think that there isn't any real argument for god.
You got it all turned around. It's the other way around, you've opened your mind so much to finding god that you found him in everything when nothing has an indication of his existence. Beauty? What you find beautiful will be different from me. Truth? Truth is just what you can show to be true Morality is subjective as well. Different culture think different about morality. Even people from the same culture have slightly different morals
I mean… if you can prove it to me then sure. For example, if I see a puddle on the ground, I can reasonably assume it rained. But I cannot prove that to someone who isn’t there with me. If you want to assume, from existence, that god exists, go ahead. But that’s not proof. It supports my theory too, is the issue, because I agree that we exist.
You see starvation, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, children cancer wards, 20000 children under the age of 5 that die every single day of the year but fear not as you see god and know that the universe was created with you in mind and he is on your side.
I see the world all around me but I don't see an invisible, unknowable, Hebrew god, or his son Jesus hiding in the clouds. He sounds like make believe to me.
You say you can see the world all around you, but how hard are you looking? DNA is complex, coherent information. That can only come from a designer. Nature had a beginning, a cause. Something that exists outside of it. Start thinking about things more deeply and you'll see that God's been all around you the whole time. Cheers
I don't SEE sub-atomic particles, atoms, DNA, the laws of physics, etc. I don't know why you think just because you can't visibly see something it isn't real.
I could just as easily point out that there are former Christians (believers) that at one time they convinced that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But then once they started thinking critically about things and really examining the actual evidence without their faith glasses on its like a switch got flipped on. It's like eyes were opened.
I could just ask you to explain everything then. From the beginning of everything and beyond. The questions, the theories, etc from the atheist community get wild with this alone. The craziest theory I've heard from a atheist is "We came from another dimension or timeline.". If you'd take off your nihilism googles you'll see some awesome stuff.
That's exactly it. The fundamental divide of this argument is a refusal to even try and see things from another worldview. If more and more people could do that properly sparks wouldn't fly so spectacularly when people come at odds. The terrifying part of that dilemma is once you've had enough time in both trenches and the question seems to indicate, if not zealously claims that one is right and the other is wrong, you're inevitably moved to pick a side. How it went for me in *tl;dr* format: I've been a man, I've been a woman, I questioned the Christian God, found Him (and any alternative transcendent being for that matter) unable to satisfy my queries for some time, then recently came back to find out He answered them just fine. I'm well accustomed to "taking off the faith glasses" (that's a perfect way of putting it, ty), especially when critical thought needs more than one way of thinking about something so vast, but I don't throw them away. For once in my life, the truth is too good for that.
They were never christians in the first place. They were raised christian in christian homes. They were never born again. A former Christian is an oxymoron. You cant be unborn again after knowing the Lord. Jesus keeps his sheep and will not lose a single one.
The "intelligent design" argument doesn't specifically just work for christianity. You can use it for many other religions as well. So the "intelligent design" argument can't specifically refer to the christian yahweh/jehova fett. Like when they make the intelligent design argument mention that their argument cannot be *only* used by christians, and how do they know Odin is not real if they haven't opened up their hearts to him and given him offerings?
What he's saying is "Close your eyes and believe hard enough, and the painting will be there. Somewhere. You wont be able to see it, or feel it - but trust me, it is there."
My entire family believes in God, and most of my friends do as well, so im not against religion when I say im fully Atheist, but I really don't understand how people can see God in anything. Everywhere I look I just see things that can be explained without, "Oh God just wanted it that way" which is half the arguments I get from people trying to convert me to Christianity. Also, the history of Christians just throws me off of believing in it. There were times where they believed all of the old testament, and now they just pick and choose what they want from it to be true, which makes me feel more like it's a fairytale and not something real. Im asking for anything tangible or explainable that God is the only answer to, otherwise I can't fathom there being one Omnipotent presence that tests people with unfair circumstances and then after people are born into nothing and forced to live a certain way, God then makes them spend eternity being tortured because they could either die or live in a way where they have to be skeptical of people or even fight. It's not a fair system for someone to be considered all knowing and seeing, as well as someone we should worship, to be using humans as basically toys and then making some suffer for actions out of their control. Im not trying to make a huge debate or problem, I just want evidence that God is real that can't be answered any other way.
This is why I don’t believe in him either,for a big majority of my life I believed in him and prayed to him daily and now I’m depressed suicidal ,and hate almost everything
@@KeaganRules I was also depressed and suicidal but I kept preserving and believing (learning verses, praying and reading the Bible) and God showed me a way, at the right time and right what I needed Somehow I discovered the apps woebot (CBT) and PTSD coach (defo a miracle) so I managed to fix myself and actually got 3As on my a level (I really thought I wouldn’t be able to do it)
I definitely agree Mike winger I watched the debate you had years ago and it truly grieved my soul hearing some insensitivity with skeptics and I'm so amazed the level of patience and love you have displayed despite backlash. I would cry hearing people offend our Savior to the depths of how much I've heard you endure, but I know these are things God always wants to equip us in. You give me courage through your videos and I definitely know God places your videos in my life for a reason to edify and strengthen me as well despite all this I just want to tell you that I know that God is smiling at you and he is pleased with all his children 🙏💕 I'm praying that God continues to strengthen you. He is with you and he is for you !
The beauty, the morality and all that stuff you mentioned have their's simple explanation that is valid for us, sceptics. Read some Dawkin's books, to understand what I mean. Your argument is a typical example of confirmation bias: you believe in something, and everything you see "proves" your belief. Read about that kind of bias on Wikipedia.
Funny fact: I never saw a single video of ppl trying to convince you there’s no god (I’m sure theres plenty ) , I can’t say that about religious ppl. Sometimes I wonder if it’s a control need instinct, a projection and a way to fully convince themselves, a way to insure a ticket to heaven or perhaps that new trend polarised things/ideas and use negative emotions to boost view/interactions on socials and of course boost cash 💴
Well of course if you consider only the good things in life this argument becomes easy. But let me (a nobody) put it this way: Let's assume there's a god, a just god, a kind god (they are the same entities in this argument), then either A. all the misery in the world (that, reminder are His creation, by definition) has been put there and has been ignored by Him, making him an unjust, unkind god (contradicting the starting assumption) or B. He actively put the misery in the world for whatever reason, rendering him an unjust, unkind god. The same argument can be done inverting the assumptions. Therefore either god doesn't exist, or it's not sane to worship Him, unless you are particularly fond of misery that is.
Yeah, when he pointed out the kindness and goodness thing I actually laughed because I as a trans person and a gay person have experienced much more pain, anger, and alienation than kindness from religious people, not all religious people, but more than his argument takes into account
Suffering is the result of rebellion against God’s order. Why create a world where suffering is possible? Perhaps avoiding suffering at any cost is not the ultimate good. God also chose to suffer
@@senorjimmy so then by that logic that means that God does not love all his creation which flies completely in the face of what is said in the Bible, either it's an unloving God, or a god that is not powerful enough to maintain what is their "order"
@@mentalwarfare2038 By that logic, nothing is real. Science is as real as you can get since it involves repeated testing and peer review to validate it. For example, gravity is a phenomenon we can observe and agree exists. We can test that objects falling towards earth will do so at ~ 9.8m/s^2.
A prophet in the Book of Mormon 2000 years ago described the latter days before Christ comes as being very similar. Unbelief and faithlessness among the believers and unbelievers alike. This analogy holds at every level.
Bruh, all 5 building blocks of life are floating around in space right at this time. Life started on its own. God is just explaination for those who don't understand science or just wanna believe what they want. If you keep forcing your beliefs onto others you will create a hate.
How is he forcing anything in this video? He's not. He's offering an explanation of a perspective, aka being respectful in establishing a conversation. If you're not willing to discuss, that's on you not him, akin to his analogy of someone standing in a room with their eyes closed.
I'm a theist. To stretch the analogy I do believe there is a painting in the room. My problem is that everyone who claims to have seen the painting has described totally different subjects.
It is hard to be charitable here. This video boils down to skeptic being not openminded enough and taken too much for granted. It doesn't really lead anywhere and is hardly more than self gratification for being smart and awesome. Especially since the same argument can be made from the other point of view. Christians take so much for granted about the world they live in (basically answering all questions with "god done did it" - polemically speaking) that they aren't even ready to take in all the evidence for naturalistic explanations. This is just empty rhetorics to appeal to the in-group.
So you have several different points here. One is that I’m saying skeptics take too much for granted. Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Another is a personal attack. You say I’m merely saying I’m smart. I disagree but I also will ignore this personal attack because it ignores my point and guesses about my motives. Another point you make is that the argument works both ways. That Christians “take so much for granted” when they say “god done did it.” This is an interesting rebuttal. We can both probably agree that Christians saying “God did it” about every conceivable thing is silly. But it’s a different thing when they are saying it about the timeless, spaceless, incredibly powerful, and intelligent cause of the universe. When they say it about moral goodness seeming to point to a personal moral source. When they say it about the brilliance in intricate detail in the universe, physics, chemistry and biology. When they say it about human self consciousness. When they say it about these things it’s hardly a throwaway phrase. It’s not like I heard a sound outside and, not knowing where it came from, assumed “God did it.” To view these issues that way is to close your eyes to the topic at hand. God is a sufficient explanation for those things. Other explanations are either insufficient or more ad hoc. We’re just doing logic at this point. Mocking God as a possible explanation for everything the way you have here is tantamount to “god done didn’t do it.”
@@MikeWinger I don't intend to go into a discussion here (has nothing to do with the topic or you specifically, I just don't do that in general on the internet) but I appreciate the time you took to answer in this semi-long post. There is mostly one thing I don't want to leave uncommented: I didn't intend to attack you personally. What I was trying to describe there was not a mindset of you personally feeling like a damn smartbutt but more of social ritual that basically every group I have ever known likes to engage in - that is to make rhetoric points that don't really serve anything other than getting others to agree to strengthen the group cohesion - so everyone can join in to feel "smart and awesome" together so to speak. My non-native english might fail me here in bringing my point across as intended. Whether that was your intention or not, I really don't care too much. That is how it came across to me, that is all. tldr: I didn't mean to attack you so my bad if that was how I made it sound.
@@MikeWinger 'God' is not a better explanation unless you can explain God, claiming this god ALWAYS existed without any good evidence that he/it exists isn't very convincing, think the best answer is,we just don't know, although it's not an answer theists like.
@@frankwhelan1715 You just did exactly what he was talking about in the video. It was the entire point. Edit - The universe explains God. It's all around us. That's what he is saying.
@@mobileore "I don't intend to go into a discussion here," I just want to make my unsolicited negative comments and then flee, without having to defend my position or justify my attack.
The journey from admiration of the natural world around us to belief in God, is a leap of faith. Attempting to prove God by other arguments (eg KALAM etc) is unnecessary if faith is all that is needed (as per John 20:29)
That depends on your definition of faith. The biblical definition of faith does NOT mean belief in absence of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. It means using the evidence around you and what you know to come to a reasonable conclusion: trust in God.
@@waywed I stand by the Biblical definition of faith. Jesus was constantly providing and pointing to evidence to be the basis of people's belief/trust/faith in Him. In John 20:29 Jesus is specifically referring to people who haven't physically seen the risen Christ. He's not referring to people who have seen zero evidence.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 ..........and Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Nothing about evidence there either! And even when evidence is mentioned it is nothing physical - Hebrews 11:1 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
@@waywed If you're choosing your own definition of faith that doesn't include evidence, that's fine, it's just not Biblical. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Matthew 22:37 Acts 1:3 Acts 17:31
Bro the fact animals exist is not proof of there being a God . Just because there is beauty in nature doesn’t mean there is a God . I think that’s the biggest problem with this debate people don’t understand what the word evidence means.
@@udoaver9726 First, I never affirmed that there was no God. That is a claim I cannot back by evidence, so I don't know why so many atheists blatantly make that claim. The evidence I spoke of was the best evidence for it. Moral, teleological, ontological, design, Bible prophecy, Bible unity, messianic prophecies, non-biblical accounts of Jesus, Kalam cosmological, ect This comment would be too long if I were to refute all of them/provide explaining theories , so I'll do a few of them. Moral: I agree that atheism has no objective morality, and cannot without God. I believe that we all intrinsically believe in objective morality. However, I believe that sense was given to us through evolution, an evolutionary illusion of objective morality. Kalam: The first premise can't be backed by solid evidence. The same laws of cause and effect don't necessarily apply to outside of the universe. Bible prophecy: The Dead Sea Scrolls carbon dating proves that the prophecies were written before the event spoken of. My issue with them is that none of them have a time frame. They are prophecies that are likely to happen given enough time, and the failed prophecies are interpreted as a metaphorical fulfilment instead of its clear literal meaning, or are said to be future prophecies. Give it a few more thousand years and I bet we'll see several more fulfilments, like the destruction of Damascus overnight. If it's not overnight, they'll say it's meant for future after being rebuilt, or a metaphorical night like Jesus' three days three nights ect. Messianic prophecy: There is no evidence that Jesus actually fulfilled any of them, we just have a bunch of texts claiming that He did, if He even existed, fulfil prophecies. And failed prophecies are ones 'meant for the Second Coming' if indeed they were telling the truth on that particular matter. Jesus' existence: All we have are documents either repeating the hearsay of the time, or known forgeries, and none of them are contemporary. Bible unity: This could've easily been brought about by in person discussions and controversies. Ontological: Just because I can conceive of something doesn't mean it exists Beauty: Beauty is subjective ect
@@fuse2563 To fully trust in God, you will get to a point where the only answer is faith. Now, this does not have to be blind faith like many may claim. Back to your main point about all the evidence you have seen being refuted, I have a couple questions for you. Where does morality come from? Surely it can't be evolution because evolution is basically "survival of the fittest" or the stronger species killing a weaker one, and where is the morality in that? Also, what standard do you have for morality, and how do you know that your idea of "good" is actually good? For the sake of this conversation, let's say there is no God. If there is no God, life doesn't truly matter. I'm not saying someone can't bring meaning to life. For instance, someone could argue that they find meaning in family, sports, or a passion of theirs. While this may be true, it still doesn't matter at all. The reason it doesn't matter at all is because if they is no God, and we are just stardust bumping into stardust, then there is no true meaning, and this conversation we have will make zero impact on anything, in the end. Finally, if there is no God, then evolution has lied to us, or made us believe that things may actually matter, when they really don't, and this is where nihilism comes into play.
@@fuse2563 I'm sorry I don't have as much time to respond to your comment and go over everything you've said, but your refutations aren't definitive, in person discussions to explain away biblical unity across the country in such a short period of time would be hard to do, it would make more sense if we found copies of corrected works in those areas instead of them being consistent from the get go. Of course you can get into the claims of copiest errors and therefore the Bible is untrustworthy but I think the many surviving copies we have preserves it better than any other written text we have from ancient history. If Jesus ever existed? Sure but apply the same level of skepticism to other historical figures and you can't be confident in their existence either... Socrates never wrote anything down but was only referenced and talked about by his two students. Probably the best evidence necessitating a God is our physical universe observably began and we know something doesn't come from nothing. I know people like to jump to quantum physics and other sciences that aren't well studied/grounded and I've got a coworker that likes to talk about that study where they've observed captured light in a vacuum (not a true vacuum as there was elements of all kinds of things in there and energy) and they claim theyve "basically observed something from nothing." But not really.
Its actually like this. Your eyes are closed and I tell you there's a painting in front of you and I tell you to believe me no question asked. A skeptic will slowly open there eyes and realise there's no painting just a play picture frame. But because your so scared to open your eyes(scared to ask and find answers to questions) you'll forever keep your eyes closed. That's the same thing. The basis of your belief is practically because you choose to keep your eyes shut and believe that there's a painting in front of you even if you have shallow clues and little evidence
but that's not how Christianity is , your straw manning Christianity, thomas who was a disciple did not believe jesus rose from the dead, people did not believe jesus in his own hometown, all people did was question jesus even the disciple john the bapist even asked jesus was he the christ or should we keep looking for another one, and funny enough Jesus use evidence aka healing and the miracles, again just because some churches tell you not to question god that's not all church the bible even tell you to test the spirits nobody was going around in just. believing in just anything
@@MikeWinger ...the Kalam? Really, that old cr0ck of sh1t? There is no indication the universe began to exist so obviously the physics consensus also doesn't say it did, AND quantum mechanics has particles appear without a cause, AND the entire argument makes no mention of any gods let alone yours. Even one of the authors cited regarding the science by the argument's main proponent William L Craig has spoken out against the blatant misrepresentation, but of course the apologists don't care whether it's true as long as the arguments fits their narrative. See _William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum,_ at 1:05:17.
The "switch" that flips, as you say, where suddenly you go from seeing no evidence for God to seeing it everywhere, must then surely just go back to it being as simple as a person just choosing to believe, or wanting to believe, irrespective of evidence. What is there hasn't changed, only their perception has. They made a choice to believe. Interesting. FYI I am not religious, however this was an intersting video. Hope you have a good day.
The Scriptures speak about this over and over! “For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’” Matthew 13:15 NKJV God has made it very simple, you can see His eternal nature, people just have closed their eyes and shut their ears and refuse to understand with their heart. You must repent first and change your mind to think outside of this world, remember, Jesus told the crowd: “You don’t understand my speech because you are of your father the devil.” To understand God, you MUST renew your mind and not be conformed to the pattern of this world, that means changing the way you think and view things. You must conform to Him, not having Him conform to you. Blessing and Amaniyah!
@@levongevorgyan6789 other religions are full of inconsistencies and contradictions, the Bible has none. People find “contradictions” because they misinterpret, are misinformed/misled, they don’t pay attention to wording/definition to certain words, and/or they take verses/teachings out of context. Other religions are false, not true, and unfulfilling (which is quite obvious in their doctrines and teachings) while the Bible/God/Christianity have proved over and over to change lives and faith for over 3000 years. I hope this answered your question :)) God bless! ❤️
@@That.little.dinosaurOh please. Not only is the Bible frequently copying those other religions, but it has plenty of contradictions. Your God is claimed to be all powerful and yet the text says: “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” All powerful and yet can't drive out charioteers of iron. Seriously. Your religion is false. Science disproves it. History disproves it. The existence of the MODERN WORLD Disproves it: “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” - Matthew 16:28 So who standing there is still alive?
@@levongevorgyan6789 I believe you are using the KJV of the verse. I suggest reading NIV or ESV to get a clearer understanding of what the verse means. It wasn’t God’s fault that the Israelites couldn’t drive out those people, it was actually the Israelites’ doubt and laziness. If you turn to Joshua 17, you’ll see they were complaining about the land God had given them even though they hadn’t carried out His commands/mission. Joshua told them exactly what God already told them to do, but their unbelief, laziness, and doubt led them to not get the plains of the hill country. I also don’t see why you think the Bible doesn’t line up with history or science. Many agree the Bible is historical and scientific. There is an ancient document that was written around the same time as the 10 plagues from the Exodus story (Ipuwer Papyrus), and Egyptologist David Rohl (who doesn’t even claim to agree with Christianity) agrees that the stories of Joseph and Moses are very accurate and there is evidence concerning the slaves in Egypt. There is historical evidence of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (eyewitnesses and historical documents). Josephus wrote about Him, Tacitus wrote about Him, and Lucian wrote about Him. There is also an ancient letter (Mara Ben Serapion letter) written around 1 century AD. It mentions the Jews’ downfall and lines up extremely well with Matthew 24-25. So, the Bible clearly lines up with history and science. The Bible also talks about how the life of any living organism is found in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), in Job 40-41 we believe God is talking about dinosaurs, (along with many other creatures which have gone extinct). The Bible talks about the water cycle (Job 36:27-28), how the earth is round and floats in space (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7), and so much more. Scientists didn’t learn these things until years later, this is evidence to show that the Bible truly is supernatural. However, I suggest you do your own research on these things, please don’t take my word for it. There are historians and scientists who do believe the Bible is supernatural, so don’t rule out the Bible so quickly :) and I can say without a doubt that Christianity is its own religion and hasn’t copied practices from other ones. You can draw close similarities like animal sacrifice (I do want to note we don’t practice animal sacrifice because it isn’t part of our worship anymore since Christ died - Romans 7:6. Animal sacrifice is found in the Old Testament) or praying, but that doesn’t mean Christianity copied other religions. If you really think about it, Christianity is really different. For example, God does not want us to make an image of Him, so we serve an invisible God. People called on the name of the LORD long before any other religion was formed (Genesis 4:26). We can also assume animal sacrifice was already in place because of the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3-4). When Paul was preaching in Athens, the people there said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,” (Acts 17:18-20). This proves that the background of Christianity and Jesus Christ Himself did not compare to the other gods/religions at the time. Even though there are close similarities between Christianity and other religions, that doesn’t mean it copied other religions. The rooster’s crow doesn’t cause the sun to come up.
You know this is quite funny because all he has to do is reverse the analiogy and you got how we see you guys closing your eyes to evidence because a world with God is a world where your life has meaning and death isn't the end too bad the world isn't a happy place To end it "The sacreist thing in the world to me would be me being correct" and thrers a 99.9% chance I am
"The Theory Of Everything" Everything begins with God In the first chapter of His book God identified the ultimate theory a theory of Everything. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. God created man in His image and likeness. A scientific model is an image or likeness of something that is used to observe or make measurements of what it is modeled after. Hypothesis If all things are of God, or the absence of God, then man should be able to measure anything Claim: Man can measure anything. Evidence The measurements of all sciences Hypothesis If Man is capable of understanding anything, then he is or must possess an ultimate tool. Claim: Man is or does possess an ultimate tool one capable of understanding anything. Evidence: The Conscious Mind. All knowledge acquired and produced therein. Method John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
@@taniscampbell5452 some problems, you have to both be able ro strictly define all those terms, and to be science it must be falsifiable.....and to be useful science it should also make predictions
@@taniscampbell5452 a couple of thoughts, first define God, second, we can't necessarily know or understand everything....the "hypothesis" doesn't follow to the conclusion made.....one example to help you If all things are of God or the absence of God, we should be able to measure anything Fitst; define God, second, we can't measure everything, third, please explain how the measurement is exclusive to that explanation, or how that makes a prediction of something unknown......last bit, that is no more useful than saying, all things are made of pink fairies or not, if they are, we should be able to measure anything, we can measure anything (not agreeing just using your words). It doesn't define pink fairy in a way that would explain the supposition that such a fairy would have any effect on anything else, especially our ability to measure. Most definitions of God that are uses are not falsifiable (no conditions allowed for that if true, would prove it wrong) anymore than anything can prove the idea of god existing equals our abilities could be proven wrong. You started with something known already, not a test you could run after, and claimed a meaning for it that has no basis in evidence.
@@75ur15 First God the Creator God of the Bible this is part of the presupposition of theory or its starting point. The causation of all things. Second what cannot be measured? Third what other life form can do science? Man is the measurable part. Or rather Man's ability to measure anything. The part that can be tested. It predicts that if something is unknown Man can come to know it. I suppose you could use pink fairies but how would how being an image or likeness of a pink fairy grant man the ability to measure anything. The Theory isn't a question of God it is a question of Man's scientific ability and of the tool that makes that possible. You could falsify this theory with another life form capable of science or something that could never be understood. I love to hear your theory.
Yeah... We don't first come to the conclusion and then find evidence for it... We follow the evidence.. And we don't just "take it for granted" And think things don't have an explanation. We are always looking for an explanation, and there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the things you mention that don't require a God.
"Easy to spot a yellow car when you are always thinking of a yellow car. Easy to spot opportunity when you are always thinking of opportunity. Easy to spot reasons to be mad when you are always thinking of being mad. You become what you constantly think about. Watch yourself." Cryptoseneca 2 cor 10:5 take all thoughts captive
So true but reality also dictates the opposite of this as well. However thats all in the script as it teaches the *factual* balance of life. This is why its not only good for the individual but also the collective to stay centered. Jesus is the Center! Matt 7:13-14 G2G 🙌 AMEN 🙏
Isn't the argument ment to be you guys defining god Also the word exists is a weird word to use since its relative depending on what meaning you give it like for example to someone who believes in God he exists in their head but in terms of reality he dosnt
@@diveblock2058 I’m an atheist. I say that thoughts, pain, hunger, etc do not exist, but rather occur. There needs to be a way to distinguish between physical objects around us and these thoughts and sensations. As such, I put all god concepts into the latter category and anyone trying to argue or convince me will need to provide a clear definition and description in a manner that can distinguish this from an abstract concept.
@@diveblock2058 If you say, "I believe in God." it's your responsibility to define it and from the definition is where it's tested to see if valid or not. Religion aside, "God" has two language definitions: A. An admired, often influential person. "Michael Jordan is a God of basketball." B. Emphasis for and to express emotions. "God darnit." (Lol) Informally, think it also got something to do with a theater. Idk. Religiously, God also has two definitions. Christianity - The Creator, The High Authority, The Man who holds the highest body count. Non-Christianity - Super human being, like superman minus the green rock side effects. Those are the generalized and basic definitions of God. None of them actually define what any given God(s) is or is not capable of.
Skeptics don't take things for granted and don't say there is no explanation for things. In fact, it's the opposite. The drive is to find the explanation of all things in the reality we live in and we're unwilling to appeal to an explanation that cannot be shown to be true.
When I see “morality” and “goodness” in the world - it never comes from a god but rather a particular person that decided to bring in this morality and goodness. When there’s no person to establish those things - there’s no sign of them at all. My point - fairness and happiness exists only because people create it, it doesn’t appear magically on its own as if some Devine being has brought it! The idea of beauty was long explained by the science. Things are beautiful because it is helpful to propagation. Flowers are beautiful because they are literally the plants’ genitalia and their purpose is to attract living creatures in order to make them spread their spores around! You only focus on beauty and “goodness” forgetting that there’s certainly ugliness and unfairness in this world. If you think the first two things are the evidence of god’s existence then what should we make of the fact that the last two things exist?
@@Whiskerbin That’s actually what always pisses me off - people tend to attribute good things to God’s will while ignoring all the bad things that happen as well. Like the sports team thanking god for helping them win while ignoring that that means he had made the other team loose….
Your so unbelievably indoctrinated by your mythology. There is literally zero proof my man. The way you all need to rely so heavily on faith shows this fact.
I'll argument for it as an agnostic. So obviously everyone knows there isn't undeniable proof that God exists, not to make you know God exists. But rather there is proof to help you believe that God exists, Because that's what faith is all about, it's not about knowing God, but Believing in God.
That's the problem: no explanation doesn't mean therefore god. And indeed, it often is like it when people come to believe in god, then they see the evidence. That is conclusion-driven thinking and not how we get to truth.
He did not say that God exists because explanations are missing. He also did not say that we see evidence because we start with a conclusion. By changing the actual statements Mike made, you are, ironically, altering your interpretation of reality to fit your pre-made conclusion.
@@SimpleAmadeus 'And that's all there, without explanation for them [etc]' ' Is it also true that when they came to believe in God they saw tons of evidence for God all over the place? Yeah, that's what I mean.'
@@Zeus-bn3nc A: The evidence shows God. B: Atheism is incompatible with the evidence. His statement is not "B, THEREFORE A". You've changed his two separate claims into a single causal claim that he did not make. Also, the correct causal link between the two claims is "A, THEREFORE B", since the evidence for God invalidates atheism. Recognizing evidence by knowing the truth is not the same as establishing truth by starting with a conclusion. You're assuming that the conclusion was reached without evidence, which is not the case. To continue Mike's eyes-closed analogy, once you open your eyes and see the paintings, you immediately conclude that there are paintings based on overwhelming visual evidence. After this conclusion, you will be able to learn more and more about the paintings and notice additional evidence that you did not notice before. You do not open your eyes by starting with a conclusion. You reach a new conclusion by opening your eyes.
it gets a tad frustrating at times. It almost feels like all you can say is "well, just look. The evidence is right in front of your face. This is obvious." but that doesnt convince anyone.
@@theconservativechristian7308 Yeah,I don't want there to be policemen so I can do some robbing,does that have an affect on the existence of the police?
Indeed. It’s obvious that there are competing and cooperating forces of nature. This is perfect proof of the pagan gods of old, who fought and interacted with each other as the forces of the universe do. That is as legitimate as your single creator.
None of those things Mike Winger mentioned are evidence for the existence of any God, at all. Trying to explain a mystery by adding another mystery is not an argument, it's wishcasting.
The only problem is that this analogy could be reversed in a case for no God. They can claim our eyes are closed to the evidence against God, but their eyes are open.
What I think would help an atheist/agnostic to find God is not to say "Show me the evidence", but to instead say "How do I find God?". One of them implies an active resistance against God, and one of them implies an actual pursuit of God which proves in the very action that a person really wants to find him. When you ask somebody what they want, you can't always tell by the verbal answer what one wants, because the verbal answer ties into a person's self-image or how a person likes to view himself, but how a person wants to view himself is not always accurate. However, when you ask a person what it is he wants, more specifically, one should look at his own actions which will inform him what he really wants. In what direction does the person face? How does the person orient himself? And what actions follow that orientation? You might have a large list of arguments to fortify your unbelief. You might have prepared scripted responses to theistic argumentation. You might be able to instantly give all of the reasons why you don't believe. However, *where is the part of you that wants to FIND God?* You tell me, why CAN God exist? Why DOES God exist? What is THE ANSWER to the problem of evil? Will your actions pursue taking the initiative upon yourself to search for the answer yourself, or have you decided in your unbelief that you have your "answer"? Or have you decided that you're going to let someone else search for an answer on your behalf so that you can resist it once they present it to you? In what way are you orienting yourself, and what subsequential actions follow from that orientation? So you tell me, why CAN God exist? Why DOES God exist? What is THE ANSWER to the problem of evil? What have you found from your own initiative in pursuing God? The question is, are you truly searching for him, or are you avoiding him? Why have all of these prepared responses against theists, but you wouldn't allow yourself to find an answer? The moment you're ready, then you won't even need the help of someone else to help you find God, you will find him for yourself, not just a formidable argument for his existence, but you will find the actual Person. Jeremiah 29:13 - And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. James 1:8 - A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
@@quaaludes7898 Instead of asking me the question, pursue God with the goal of asking him the question. Coming to me only creates a middle man between you and God. You're creating a wall of separation between you and God already... You don't need me, just cut out the middle man and go directly to God. Asking me the question assumes that I found the answer on my own initiative. Therefore, *you become that very person your wanting me to be on your behalf.*
@@Bi0Dr01d I've been a Christian most of my life, so please trust me when I say, I've sought God out. I've searched hard and deep, and only come up with more questions. I initially got thinking after I finished reading the Bible as a teenager. I wondered how every major religion has their followers read a book, and how I was told the Bible is the only correct one. It really got me thinking, and this is while studying at a Christian school (literally called the cathedral school). I thought about Greek and Norse mythology - Thor, Zeus etc. They were seen as Gods, they were parts of religions for millions of people, who KNEW their belief was correct. And now we confidently say they're mythology. It really confused me. Then I started thinking about modern religion. How do I know my beliefs are the correct ones from the hundreds of religions today, and of the thousands of religions throughout history. And it dawned on me: i don't, and there's no way to know for sure. So why was i Christian? Well i realised it's because I was born in a Christian country to Christian parents and went to a Christian school. What if I was born in a Muslim country to Muslim parents? Well i wouldn't follow Christianity, I'd follow Islam! I think you get the idea. I've search for God long and hard throughout my life, I've asked the fundamental questions and the answers are nothing but vague and dismissing. Can you blame me for losing my belief?
@@quaaludes7898 I find that interesting that you're not just internally disagreeing and living your own life, you're wanting other people to see it through this lens that a person cannot find out what is true in which you're wanting other people's thoughts to conform to the way you think, or influence the way other people think, and that would imply you're evangelizing. The issue with your talking points is, as it would seem, an unbeliever at some point saw your struggles and capitalized on them or sowed seeds in your mind in which you are now *repeating what you heard from another atheist* which led to you having an anti-faith faith. What you may not realize is, *what you have right now is exactly the same thing you had before,* it is only an opposite version of the same thing. It is an anti-faith faith. You were a Christian because you were born in a Christian home. Since all the reasoning you're expressing came from another atheist because these are all the exact same talking points from other atheists, then you're only an atheist because you were influenced by other atheists. It's the exact same thing. - I used to be a Christian - every religion is just as dedicated - Which god? Thor, Zeus, etc.? - Everyone's in disagreement. Everyone can't all be right. - There's no way to know the truth - if you were born in Muslim country, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in Christian country, you would be a christian. - I'm asking other people questions in hopes that they have searched for God on my behalf but I will not continue my search for God but will just ask other people questions and make excuses for my unbelief when other people don't answer a question that I'm no longer pursuing an answer for. We have heard all of these talking points before. *You're not saying anything new, you're saying things that were taught to you by unbelievers.* None of these are your own thoughts, they are influenced by unbelieving mindsets. These are scripted responses you're saying, and it's quite apparent that it's not the first time you have made this speech. You've practiced it and prepared it for the purpose of evangelism. Nothing has really changed in your unbelief, it's the same basic approach in a different wrapper. This is why I would say both your positions in your past life as a Christian and now are wrong because you're repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, but you believe that you're making a change simply because the title "Christian" changes to "atheist", but it's the exact same thing in it's equally opposite form, and therefore exposes that there was a problem in your approach when you believed in Christianity and that you did not need to leave Christianity, you needed to change your approach and how you approach your Christian beliefs. Yes, I know that you thought about it in a way that led to your unbelief, but I'm saying that the way you're looking at it is not the right way to look at it. The reason why what you're saying seems convincing is because you're looking at (some partially) true observations, but you're coming to incorrect conclusions by those observations. Think about a person stranded in the middle of the water on a small boat. He can focus on all of the very TRUE observations of how everything looks hopeless, how he doesn't have a paddle to paddle his boat, there's no wind to push his sail, and there's no food. He can get so caught up in these TRUE observations that he becomes paralyzed by them and therefore stops fighting for his life because he's drawn into his thoughts. However, another person makes a Free Will choice to resist his own tendencies to look at positive things, such as the fact that he still has strength, or has air in the balloon or perhaps other resources he can use to build tools or weapons in which there are two different outcomes. So the issue is *PERCEPTION.* I understand what you're saying, but you're being deceived... You don't realize that I'm answering your question in my last post, and my last post responds to this post you're posting. I'm trying to show you something that I do not believe you seen before, and to the degree you're listening will be to the degree in which you will receive answers. This is why I changed nothing in what I said before. The moment you're ready, you won't even need my help or anyone else's help to find God. There's a mystery in a structure of how things work, and just because you're a Christian does not mean that you picked up on this when you believed. Now that you know that I've heard what you said, now it's your turn, I need you to listen to me now. I need you to go back and read my last post and listen...
@@Bi0Dr01d Thank you for seeing my point of view, I assure you I made those realisations myself. Asking logical questions shouldn't be something people should suppress, the more critical thinking the better. debate is *always* a good thing. I'll re-read your passage when I get a chance.
As believers to see (God working) through you, the evidence of your faith, seek His will daily. 1 John 3:7 "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous."
The correct analogy is: You with your eyes closed tell me there is a paint in the room. You open your eyes and there is no paint at all in the room. And thats it. The room is the real world and the paint is your god belief.
Or you could just live with the fact that god is just an idea that lives in your head. It’s totally ok, if it gives you strength or offers you peace, why not? But stop trying to make god „real“. He isn’t. It’s just a way how people deal with the harsh reality of life.
To be fair, the phrase "God isn't real" can't be proven; not without strict disprovable definitions for "god"......it is fair to say no God or Gods have sufficient evidence to support proof of existence to the general population
For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been seen clearly since the creation of the world, being understood through that which He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Odin wants it emphatically known that life WAS NOT created by Yahweh! The endless slaughter, violence, and brutality of our world make it blatantly clear a sadistic god of war is in control! And those who think otherwise are without excuse!
@@JamesRichardWiley man how simple is this concept. Why don't they get this? If God truly loves us then show up, if you can't do that atleast don't say you love us.
Why do the people who supposedly have their eyes open describe contradictory paintings? The descriptions have some things in common (provided that the people in question believe in the same book that describes the painting), but vary greatly and are not compatible with each other.
When the goats ask when they failed to see God in Matthew 25:44, he answers in 25:45 that it was when they weren't looking to the disadvantaged. We fail to see God because we're looking for the wrong thing. I like Pastor Winger's analogy, because I've absolutely met those people. There you say, "Look at the artwork," and then they complain that they were looking for a painting when you were talking about a statue.
@@JamesRichardWiley I will take from your response that you did not read what I wrote. What were you looking for when you were looking for God? How does that compare to what the goats are pointed to in Matthew 25:45?
@@thatoneguy1299 there is a difference between giving evidence, doesn't have to be magical.....and being no better evidenced than any of the pantheons of old that (almost) no one believes in
I suggest watching TheraminTrees, Prophet of Zod, Viced Rhino, Aron Ra, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Jimmy Snow, and Tell Tale. Let's say there is a blind man in the room, how would they know anything is in the room? They feel around, they ask questions if someone is in the room or not, if no answer comes, they might talk to themselves, there are different tricks of the mind to trick you into thinking that the thoughts it creates comes from somewhere else. We have explanation and tests for all of these that you mentioned, especially morality, lack of morality and different morality. So how do we test for your God, not just a diestic one. All religion is is a trick, once you understand how it's being done all that is left is disgust and pity at the people using it to manipulate others. The test I've heard religious folk suggest are extremely susceptible to biases, manipulation, and other systematic errors. The thing is no religion has evidence beyond "we exist isn't that neat!" There are 15 possible explanation for the universe, try one of those. We have examples how the "after life," can be dreamed up by humans, what examples can you give of it being a reality. Should we measure and consider all the other resurrection stories? Or should we believe on faith and it coming down from a person of authority that it totally happened? Or the miracle of horses? It is said in a Greek story how the great God Poseidon made them. Should we use them as evidence for Poseidon being real.
Your a analogy falls apart because your god is all powerful. He can "force open a person's eyes" in such a way that is not painful. If he can't do that, he's not all powerful. If he doesn't want to, I can't be faulted for not having enough evidence to believe in him. And if he punishes me for not believing in him (when he could have given me the evidence), then he's not morally good.
@@kathleennorton6108 That's not true. Can a person wilfully deny that there is a force keeping them on the ground? Couldn't your god give me evidence that is undeniable? Why hasn't he done that?
"these things exist, so there is a god" mate, that's not how it works. All the good in the world from people are just a result of history and genetics, like that doesn't make sense. The empathy from humans is an evolutionary advantage that allows us to thrive, and it comes from our evolved intellect, not some god. Also, if there has to be a god to create these things, who/what created god huh? see it just doesn't work.
Him To Why I'm a skeptic: Because y'all don't feel the love and kindness made by "god" Me when I became a skeptic: 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗵𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗶𝘁𝘆. 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 👁👄👁
His argument is literally a redirection. Skeptics don't start looking for God, they don't accept that a God exists. So when we say "prove there is a god" they are actually asking for proof. You can't "miss" evidence. If it's evidence it can be shown to anyone under any circumstances and it would be obvious. Nothing elegant in this video. Just classic misdirection
Explained that beautifully?? Youre kidding right? He used a close youre eyes and prove to me a painting is there analogy to try to explain why god exists. As an agnostic this arguement pushes me in the opposite direction. And im sure it does for many others. Hence all the comments
The real problem here is that Winger is attributing motive where he has no idea where people are coming from (I.e. skeptics have their eyes closed/deny what is before them). This is simply and emphatically wrong. I was a believer, converted from a life of drugs and broken family, went to Bible college to be a missionary, devoted 25 years of my life to Christ in, yes, a loving relationship with the savior. I am now, after devotion and study an atheist toward the hideous Christian god. I’m not all Rom. 1:18ff suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. I am overtly convinced Bible god does not exist. However, mike does say “prove to me that there is *a* god”. This is a problem- Bible god rides on the coattails of general godness. Toward an unknown deity, I am agnostic. Toward Jesus-Yahweh I’m a strong atheist.
@@shidfard Not at all. I’ve read Licona’s book and listened to countless debates including the most recent with Ehrman and Licona. I simply do not find the evidence convincing. Further, there is good reason to doubt the existence of the very god that Christians use as evidence for the resurrection (e.g. “If God exists, the miracle of the resurrection is no problem.”)
@@leef_me8112 Uhm, this would be more like being in a loving relationship and then waking up one day to realize that the other person had v ever been there in the first place. All the various items and incidents strewn around the apartment and throughout life turned out to really be false connections I had constructed.
Blessed be the Lord, Who daily loads us with benefits, The God of our salvation ~Psalm 68:19 HE gives us so much. A beautiful sunset, a kiss from a loved one, a belly laugh, a delicious meal, being able to enjoy LOVE. We have so many gifts from Him that we absolutely take for granted.
Satan Killed Christ Jesus (The Gospels are just parables set on Earth & doctrinal warfare later believed as historical): The pseudograph 2 Pet. 1:16 is pushback against people (likely a group of Xtians who we don't get to hear from) that are saying the Gospels are literary fabrications, and then forges an eyewitness account. Later in 2 Pet. 3:15-16 it mentions that there's things in Paul's letters that do not make sense, which is strange in light of 1 Cor. 3:2 & Heb. 5:12 in which converts are taught things easy to understand. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9). Who in context of what Paul wrote would execute someone for being in human form? Phili. 2:6-8 "6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself (Isa. 53:12), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." Who would NOT kill Jesus if it was made known to them that by doing so it would fulfill God's plan for mankind to have a chance at immortality? 1 Cor. 2:6-8 "6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (Note: "rulers of this age" is reciprocal with Earthly & spiritual powers to the ancient reader) To Paul a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom (The Synoptics have a flesh resurrected Jesus). 1 Cor. 15:49 "49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality." Dirty, or impoverished clothing, and clean, or gleaming clothing were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world. (Mark 14:51-52 "A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.", 16:5 "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.") Rom. 4:25 "who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." Note: 1 Cor. 11:23 "betrayed" is contextually reciprocal with "handed over" in Greek (Rom. 1:24, :26, :28). The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth. Zec. 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua/Jesus (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zec. 6:11-13 "11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Rom. 15:12 "12 and again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope." (Isa. 11:10 LXX). Isa. 11:1 "1 A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." 1 Cor. 15:24-26 "24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Jos. 10:24-27 "24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua/Jesus, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/1 Cor. 15:24-28, Rom. 16:20, Heb. 1:13, 2:5-9, 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Five Kings= Five Senses (Flesh) Philo: ON ABRAHAM "XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses." Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III "(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them."
@@JamesRichardWiley unfortunately yes, we all are acquainted with these to some extent… God is always with us through it all, though. I’ve been through enough to know that when He promises to never leave us or forsake us, He means it
@@hisnameisiam808 Paul's Christ Jesus and Philo's Divine Word are the same (perceived) OT Character. Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of Creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial High Priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Spiritual Kinship/Angel of God (Rom. 8:29, Gal. 4:5-7, :14, Heb. 1:4) Philo: ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES "XI ...In reference to which I admire those who say, “We are all one man’s sons, we are men of Peace,” (Gen. 42:11) because of their well-adapted agreement; since how, I should say, could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?" "XXVIII ...And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s Sons.” (Gen. 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word...." Note: Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." This could be a cultic title (like Peter/Cephas which means "Rock" could have been, or an idiom) rather than being a biological relation? Paul constantly refers to those "in Christ" as brothers/sisters in a spiritual family. Good Shepherd (Heb. 13:20) Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES "XIX ...for they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the pastoral care of God." "XX But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the Psalms we find a song in these words, “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack Nothing;” (psa. 23:1) therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the divine word, for its instructor,..." Purification/Forgiveness of Sins/Glorification (1 Cor. 6:11, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6) Philo: ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II "XXVI Such then are the figurative meanings which he desires to indicate by the sacred vestments of the high priest;... ...namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;..." Tested (Heb. 2:18) A Man (Rom. 5:15-19, 1 Cor. 15:45-49) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I "XXXIX ...For when the sacred word has purified us with the sprinklings prepared beforehand for purification, and when it has adorned us with the select reasonings of true philosophy, and, having led us to that man who has stood the test, has made us genuine, and conspicuous, and shining,..." Sits Beside God (Heb. 8:1) Philo: ABOUT NOT MOVING LANDMARKS "XXXVIII... I say, should such men triumph in and insult the misfortunes of others, having no respect for justice, the ruler (Note: justice/ruler) of human life, who sits by the side of the great Ruler of the universe, who surveys all things with sleepless and most piercing eyes, and sees what is in recesses as clearly as if it was in the pure sunlight?" The Word is a Covenant (1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:4-6) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book II "XXXIII ...God, says that he is about to erect firmly his covenant full of grace (and that means his law and his word) in the soul of the just man as on a solid foundation, which shall be an image in the likeness of God, when he says to Noah, “I will establish my covenant with Thee.” (Gen. 9:11) And besides this, he also indicates two other things, one that justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God (Note: justice/covenant), the other that other beings bestow gifts which are different from the persons who receive them;... XXXVI Since then all steadiness, and stability, and the abiding for ever in the same place unchangeably and immovably, is first of all seen in the living God, and next in the word of the living God, which he has called his covenant;..." Sacrificial Blood (Heb. 12:24) Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, and should in some manner become rational; following the guidance of admonition, and purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Intermediary Agent to Mortals (Rom. 8:34, Gal. 3:19-20, Heb. 12:24) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I "XII ...who never abandons his faith in God and his invisible comprehension of him, but who keeps to the intermediate divine word, which affords him the best suggestions, and teaches him everything which is suitable to the times. For God, not condescending to come down to the external senses, sends his own words or angels for the sake of giving assistance to those who love virtue. But they attend like physicians to the disease of the soul, and apply themselves to heal them, offering sacred recommendations like sacred laws, and inviting men to practice the duties inculcated by them, and, like the trainers of wrestlers, implanting in their pupils strength, and power, and irresistible vigour. Very properly, therefore, when he has arrived at the external sense, he is represented no longer as meeting God, but only the divine word,..." Empties (Kenosis) Himself (Phili. 2:7-8) Philo: Who is The Heir To Divine Things "XLI ...but in real fact for the whole world which was created by divine wisdom may be consecrated and dedicated, being made a burnt offering of early in the morning and also in the evening. For such a life as this becomes the world, namely, continually and without ceasing to be giving thanks to its Father and Creator, so as to stop short of nothing but evaporating and reducing itself into its original element, in order to show that it stores up and conceals nothing, but dedicates itself wholly as a pious offering to God who created it." Born of a Woman/Under the Law (Gal. 4:4b), Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24b) Philo: ON FLIGHT AND FINDING "XX ...For we say that the high priest (Jos. 20:1-6) is not a man, but is the Word of God, who has not only no participation in intentional errors, but none even in those which are involuntary. For Moses says that he cannot be defiled neither in respect of his father, that is, the mind, nor his mother, that is, the external sense; "He shall not go where there is a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother." (Lev. 21:11) because, I imagine, he has received imperishable and wholly pure parents, God being his father, who is also the father of all things, and Wisdom being his mother, by means of whom the universe arrived at creation (Prov. 3:19-20, 8:22-31); and also because he is anointed with oil, by which I mean that the principal part of him is illuminated with a light like the beams of the sun, so as to be thought worthy to be clothed with garments. And the most ancient Word of the living God is clothed with the word (Law) as with a garment, for it has put on earth, and water, and air, and fire, and the things which proceed from those elements. ...Nor will he “rend his clothes;” (Lev. 21:10) for the Word of the living God being the bond of every thing, as has been said before, holds all things together, and binds all the parts, and prevents them from being loosened or separated." Philo: A Treatise Concerning The World "II ...But the eternal law of the everlasting God is the strong and lasting support of the universe. This law being extended from the centre of the world to its furthest extremities, and again back from its extremities to the centre, moves on in the unwearied irresistible course of nature, uniting and binding together all the parts of the universe. For the Father who established it made it to be the indissoluble bond of the universe. Therefore we are naturally led to conclude that the whole earth will not be dissolved by water, which its bosoms contain; nor again will fire be extinguished by the air, nor again will the air be burnt up and consumed by fire, since the divine law has placed itself as a boundary to keep all these elements distinct from one another."
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This will be seen as a personal attack to many. It's really not. I'm trying to explain why it is that some people seem to see zero potential evidence for God and others see evidence for God pretty much everywhere. There's a fundamental divide in how we are thinking about everything we perceive.
What should be obvious (but never seems like it is) is that I am not trying to talk about every single skeptic who has ever lived. But this seems to represent enough of the skeptics I've met that it's worth talking about. An interesting experiment can be done to show what I mean. Think of a former skeptic you know. Is it true that at one time they thought there was pretty much zero evidence for God? Is it also true that when they came to believe in God they saw tons of evidence for God all over the place? Yeah, that's what I mean. It's like a switch got flipped on. It's like eyes were opened.
All this is not to dodge any thoughtful discussions of things like the fine tuning arguments, the contingency arguments, the prophecy arguments, the argument from consciousness, or the many other lines of evidence we can talk about which point to God. But I really do think that for those who see the world around them clearly, the evidence for God is overwhelming.
My FULL unedited answer can be found here - ua-cam.com/video/12fimxto67E/v-deo.html
These skeptics just need to humble themselves in order to let in, and FEEL the power of the Holy Dopamine Ghost via Placebo Faith.
@@hakushokuhikari Theism is a thought addiction with no substance.
Simple conclusion, pride blinds, and pride gets resisted.
@@danielwilkinson1024 Mathew 18:3-4
OK - Romans 1:20
I can touch a painting with my eyes closed
But can you tell me what has been painted just by touch? In a similar way it could be argued that evidence around us is within reach but we have to have faith to interpret that evidence as something divine, or else our interpretation would be limited by human understanding. What if you felt something with your eyes closed and said "I can feel the texture, smell the oils, and follow the frame around the perimeter of this object; but since seeing is believing and I cannot see what's in front of me, it must not be a painting." That's the point being made, where there's evidence of the inherent beauty of the world that points to a greater force but since our understanding of some old guy materializing from the clouds in front of us hasn't come true, some people see that as evidence there is no God. That too is based on the reasoning that our understanding of what God is happens to be the truth of the matter, whereas the better interpretation is He is beyond our mortal understanding since the concept of a creator of the Universe who has inherently good intentions is too vast for our understanding. That's why we make theories on how the Universe came to be, since we seek a narrative that fits our own understanding. But it's foolish to say that since you can't see the object in front of you (even though all the evidence points to a painting), it must be something that can only be justified without sight.
@@aceup1 I understand what you are trying to convey here. But unfortunately there is a big difference between an object that can be perceived (by the reflection of the different light wavelengths that land on your retina sending a electrical charge into the back of your brain, making it create a picture in the surface of your brain), and an ideology, passed by people thousands of years ago in the form of a collection of books, notes and messeges. The 1st is something perceived, the second one is not able to be perceived, it's just a never ending chain of people saying "trust me bro"
@@chillychillicus5629 But that line of reasoning assumes that the only evidence that points to a Creator is the generational belief in one, where God was created centuries ago to explain the Universe. However, that's not the only evidence for God. Like I was saying with the painting metaphor, your interpretation is that religions know it's a painting because other blind people told them that's what it is, but that disregards all the **other** evidence for a Creator. Like I said, rather than just taking a religious leader's word for it, there's evidence in the texture, the frame, the smell, and other features you can determine without sight that point to the object being a painting. In the same way, the video is arguing that there is overwhelming evidence of a benevolent force because of the beauty around us, our ability to have emotions and souls, and our morality, all of which point even just a little to a greater being that you can perceive the effect of without taking religious leaders' word for it. The video isn't arguing strictly for the existence of God, nor am I; the real argument is to reframe our perception of evidence within the world around us, and whatever conclusion that provides, it's not based solely on 'taking their word for it' (just like taking the scientists for their word when a new theory is announced)
@@aceup1 as I said, those two things can't make a good analogy since they vary greatly. A metaphor or an analogy, is a fine way to explain something to someone but it's not by any chance a logical statement or a factual one. (Unless you are comparing things with only common variables). To not drag this too long, What I am trying to convey is that this video used a metaphor as a way of persuasion rather than a way of explanation of it's reasoning. And that's not including the fact he took an opinion which is wrong (we can't explain love, nature etc), and used it as a statement to build his reasoning.
Tl.dl video was meh, points made were meh, because he started with a wrong statement and then used a metaphor (that do not work at the specific problem) to build a reasoning.
@@aceup1 but we have thousands of explanations for why humans act good. And none of them need a god.
Most of them have to do with what kind of animal humans are.
We are social animals that means we survive in groups and not alone.
Acting good just means pleasing the group your living in. Because being shunned and thrown out means death.
Beauty is subjective there are people who find decaying body’s and mold growing beautiful. That is not anything that proofs a god
There are so many holes in this argument I’m thinking of calling this Swiss Cheese evangelism.
Maybe the sponge argument?
"proove to me theres a painting"
okay. lemme just
*puts your hand on the painting*
there. sorted. painting.
@@Dont_Stare_I_Will_Stare_Back So using a sense of feeling justifies something you can't see. Explain how that's different from some believer's claims to feel guidance, or hear a voice, or sense a right and wrong choice or presence and such.
@@Undomaranel our five senses are proven however even mentally deranged people can hear voices "guiding" them. That's the best way i can counter your argument. I'm catholic but the teachings we're taught these days feel forced and makes us feel dependant on God, of course thats just my opinion.
Absolutely Rick
There's no valid reason for why God would be the source for all those things
Why?
The fool says in his heart, “there is no God”.
Quote from a 4,000 year old scroll of a king of a nation that was prophesied/predicted 1,000 years beforehand in a scroll written 5,000 years ago.
@@rprestarri So even the fool is smarter than christians.
@@rprestarri We made laws long before jesus or the bible. They literally chisled laws in stone for centuries. Hell even the most brutal tribes had laws for murder, theft and rape. Long before jesus and all across the globe that had zero interaction with the middle east
@@rprestarriso try again
So your argument is “assume god is real and only then can I prove to you that god is real”? Really? That’s the best you can do? Might be convincing for everyone already inside your echo chamber but won’t do much for anyone else
Exactly.
Preach
Preach
Yes, it's really just about the point of view, for every good you see, there is one bad, so following the metaphor, you may open your eyes, but you tunnel vision on the things you WANT to see, the things that prove your point. This counter argument (in my opinion) is just as logical. I personally don't really have any problems with religious people, in fact, most my family is religious, but i feel like that this discussion is pointless. There is always a counter argument. I think that instead of living in a world of assumptions we should embrace the lack of knowledge we have on the universe. I know im rambling about this too much at this point, so to end; everyone can have the beliefs they want to have, my mind can't accept anything that has this much contradictions in it
The argument should then have been how real you're as a human being? How real and trustworthy your conscience is? or How REAL the obsolete theory of evolution was?
Would this be an extremely baseless and confused echo chamber for a philosophical starting point?
Did this guy just use the "of course God exists, look at the trees" argument
If I’m in a room with a painting and am told to prove it exists with my eyes closed, all I have to do is feel around and I WILL find it eventually. I also know that paintings are things that can exist and could be found within a room. Neither of these things can apply to most gods and ESPECIALLY your god. All that evidence you think points to your god has legitimate, quantifiable relationships to reality that require no supernatural source at all.
You’ve essentially placed me in a completely empty room blindfolded, ordered me to find the bed and call me a fool for failing to do so. When I protest you tell me the bed is intangible and I should just feel where it is. What honest person wouldn’t think that to be a pointless exercise?
If you are placed in a normal living room that you never saw and was told to find the painting, how with your eyes closed, can you differ the feeling of a painting with a picture or mantle decorations or whatever else? If you have your eyes closed to reality you won’t be able to tell the difference of anything. That is what sin does and it’s because of sin corrupt thinking that makes you blind to what is but Christ made a way out so repent and turn to Him.
If you have questions I can help get a better understanding.
@@user-ly2xw8to3t If there is, in fact, a painting in the room I'm in then even with my eyes closed I will eventually find it, by process of elimination if nothing else. What it feels like or how it differs from the other wall decorations doesn't matter aside from assisting in the elimination process.
Sin, both the concept and application, is utterly useless to any individual living in our shared reality. For it to matter you first have to prove there's a God for that sin to offend. If I have any questions it would be to ask for any evidence you have for the existence of that being. Establish that and then we can move forward, and we'll see whom will have the better understanding at the end.
@@user-ly2xw8to3t you will probably be able to tell that it is a painting because of it's texture. Also I don't think it's that people who believe in god suddenly have their eyes open to evidence but that they are interpreting the world as evidence. Something existing isn't proof of that something being made by someone, it's just proof that the something is existing. It also shows no proof of specifically the Christian god creating it, it could be the hindu gods or even some god/gods that are unknown
@@hapmon8114Good point, because what Christian's seem to think is that everything had to be made by something, for them it's god. But then what made god? And then what made god's creator? It's a endless cycle.
@@saikoakuma would you agree that there is a lot of wrong things people can do?
Algorithm this was a miss for me.
Lmaoooo THIS!!
Same lmao
Fr I'm an atheist
Me too I’m trans and not straight what we’re they thinking
@@theultimitelifeform8548 whether your trans or straight, God is looking out for you. Turn to Christ Jesus and disregard your sinful past. Your sexuality and your social status, your friends, and community can not save you from God’s judgement, only Jesus Christ.
“The lack of evidence for God is actually evidence for God, you’re just unwilling to see it”
No wonder you people end up in cults so often.
That made no sense.
I'm an atheist I try not to talk about religion because it nearly never kinders a healthy debate so I just don't talk about people's religious beliefs but I don't like people to tell me what to or not to believe in I'm not saying anything about youre argument because generally it nearly always is religious people who fall into cults
You know it’s bad when they say “you people”
Hmm that made no sense.
@@Slymation lol true.
It’s crazy to me how many Christians will dump the “you just think it’s not true because you don’t want it to be true” on you when they just think it’s true because they want it to be true
Why is this in my recommendations...
youtube's algorithm isnt as good for shorts as it is for regular videos, ive been noticing this
Most likely because UA-cam figured you would leave a comment on the video. Which you did. Looks like the algorithm worked. And now that you watched the video and commented on it you probably will or will have seen more.
Because it’s for people who are still delusional. The algorithm is trying to give you common sense
This is why people scoff at the historical evidence for God, but believe all the other history we've discovered using evidence way more speculative than that. They don't even believe the evidence is real they're in such denial.
If a god never appears in my world then I must be in denial.
There is more reliable historical evidence for the existence of Tigran the Great then God.
@@JamesRichardWiley you not personally feeling his presence is not evidence he isn't there. If you go to an art show, you don't say look at that beautiful painting, a random explosion must have popped off and this is what happened! No, you ask who painted it. Look at the stars, how can you argue the constellations weren't intentionally designed? You may be overthinking this, there is an intelligent designer, God, and he wrote a letter to us called the Bible that reveals he is the creator. At death or rapture (for some), he will judge us for how we've lived on this earth. The concept is incredibly simple, people try to make it far harder than it is.
@@jvo3777 "he wrote a letter to us called the bible" I think you should start from the beginning and find out how many authors and books it contains.
The issue is that historical evidence of anything and everything is doubted until scientific clear evidence can prove it. A lot of historical stuff not related to religion is still doubted up to today. It’s just that with god, we don’t really have much solid scientific evidence of his existence. Sure there is the bible, but that is made up of many books translated more times than anyone remembers, and was written by people claiming god told them what to write. There were people in temples in Ancient Greece and Rome that were said to receive messages from god, but the temples were also in an area with a lot of natural gas that got them high (as well as them burning plants that had similar effects). There are endless possibilities for the reasoning of anything, and in truth we do not have an answer for all of it. Thus, we have religions that we believe in to satiate the need to have a reason or creator. I’m not denying the possibility of a god (most atheist aren’t), I’m just not taking a belief, as a fact. With god people have worked backwards from everything in life to a possible beginning that doesn’t have much genuine or undeniable evidence. You can’t take everything you see and feel as evidence because it is a result without clear cause. I can say green is the my favourite colour, therefor it was made by this character that I love, but that doesn’t make it true or mean it’s proof. God is a possibility, not an undeniable truth. Believe in what you will, I will respect you for it (hey, there is the possibility you could be right), but I think most people that don’t believe just want live life discovering new evidence and causes for creation for themselves (or they’re like me and just don’t really care how we came to be because we’re gonna be gone at some point so who cares).
Also I’m not trying to be confrontational or anything, my writing just sounds like that sometimes, sorry. Have a good day( or night?)!
"That's all just there without explanation for them"
^ garbage coming from someone who has talked to MANY atheists.
Apologists keep scoring own-goals.
Basically, this. If I had to choose an opponent as an atheist it would be a guy like this who couldn't convince anyone that god is real.
i've talked to many atheist myself, i had some tell me that common sense is overrated, i have some tell me that the bible supported the flat earth theory one even gave the original word which actually meant circle, I've had a lot atheist throw they own under the bus like Hitler one even told me that Mao was a Christian i had one tell me that Jospeh stalin was a Christian, i debated a lot of people who believed in evolution but when i asked for evidence they couldn't give me none. its alot of atheist so blind and bias to they whole belief system just saying.
The first time God was able to prove His power to me didn't happen UNTIL I asked Him to!! It was silent, in my head, and I felt a little silly talking to a God I wasn't sure existed. But after that small moment of humility and openness God was like "LOL BET WATCH THIS" and did so many miracles in the following weeks I could no longer deny Him.
That's the power of the Holy Dopamine Ghost.
@Bleirdo Dude dopamine, dmt, whatever else you choose to believe in, doesn’t explain away the numerous instances of cancer healings upon prayer.
@@HoodedSpidey So there's no such thing as cancer remission without prayer?
That’s beautiful!
@@bleirdo_dude Dopamine doesn't cause you to hear a voice (that being of the Holy Spirit) which predicts the future without fail during prayer. I spent most of my life atheist and some years as a witch; I need evidence to believe something is real. Dopamine can't even come close to doing the things God has done in my life. They are supernatural events
Genuine question: why is God only associated with beauty and morality and all those good things, but not with the horrible realities of life like suffering, crime, unfairness? Do I look at that and tell myself that someone who supposedly loves me made me live in the cruel world he created and might continue tormenting me even worse after my death - and that that's a good thing?
To me it seems that faith in a god is just the expression of our hope for a greater good, but I simply can't be that optimistic...
I don't really like this guys analogy or content at all but if you actually want an answer and aren't just the edgy "I'm too enlightened to believe in God" I'll give you a genuine answer.
He isn't only in the best of things. In fact I would say you only find him in the worst of things. There's an old proverb of the footprints in the sand: while walking along side god a man looked back and saw that the hardest moments in his life there was only one set of footsteps, outraged he turned to the Lord and demanded to know why, why had he abandoned him when he needed him most. And god responded; child you were never alone. Those are the moments I carried you.
God exists in everything, if you want to be more removed and pseudo scientific about it you could say that god isn't so much the hope for a better day (although honestly even if he was what's the big issue with that?) It's the innate will within all living creatures to keep going even when times are tough and it all seems hopeless. Even when there is only despair and ugliness and pain you keep going and that's because god is within you helping you push forward and weather the storm.
@@laurene988 that was a lot of baseless assumptions. Really. you not only assume the existence of a deity and present 0 testable claims, you also assume his gender, and his behaviour. What's next? Claims about the AFTERLife? That you heard from living mortals?
An almighty AND good magic dude putting ebola into children. That god concept is ridiculous. Good OR almighty. Then it is possible. And still unproven.
Or, or, hear me out here, touch the painting, the painting exists right there, just because your eyes are closed doesn't mean the painting disappears, you could walk towards the painting and feel it, you can't do that with what you assume to be a god, so your explanation has no correlation.
The problem is that it does, from a given perspective. It is about what classes as evidence. If the only evidence you have is your eyes then it isn't hard to be deceived......go forth and touch the paining to find out it is a fancy projection, or a forgery.....but if you trust your eyes 100% you have no reason to ask the question.....
@@75ur15 But you should never trust your eyes 100%. Likewise, you shouldn't trust that "everything that exists" is evidence for God just because Christians say so. There needs to be actual evidence for God in order to believe in God. Not the other way around.
@@kylerichardson1242 been on vacation no net, in Port with internet for now; double be offended if I don't respond for a few days after,
That was my point, the fact that op trusted until their eyes were closed and sought to verify only after was my point. If the existence of the painting mattered (beyond hey, that's pretty) then other means of verification not just of its actual existence but also of authenticity, say for purchase. Trusting eyes 100% is a bad idea....we are in agreement.
@@75ur15 Yep. Agreed.
Mike, your analogy does not hold. In case of the painting, all people in the room see the same painting, as soon as they open their eyes. In case of religion, they describe very different gods as soon as they "open their eyes".
Do they really? It seems other factors are involved when it comes to fundamentally different conceptions of God.
this is very far from the truth. I am in a fine arts class right this very moment and I can tell you people most DEFINITELY do not see the "same" paintings my friend.
@@MikeWinger Thank you for spreading the holy word of Odin 😇🙏
You can make an argument for a painting being in a room without sight. You can touch it, because paint has a different texture to empty canvas. That should be pretty undeniable proof.
Part of proving something is searching for more proofs that confirm your argument. If everything you try points to the same answer, you can be pretty confident that the answer is right
If you have never seen or been near a painting though, would it really be "undeniable" proof then? That seems like a more fitting start for the analogy.
@@stonewolf5613 if you've never seen a painting, then this analogy completely breaks down. Because the question moves from proving a thing's existence to describing what the thing is
@@risa8244 No, I disagree. How many have seen God before after all?
@@stonewolf5613 the rest of his video still doesn't hold up. He's providing explanations without disproving anti hypotheses
"To have proof for god, you need to first believe in god." Then why would I need proof? This argument will just get people to think that there isn't any real argument for god.
There isn't any real argument for god. We're nearly stunned when we find out that you actually believe this stuff.
You got it all turned around. It's the other way around, you've opened your mind so much to finding god that you found him in everything when nothing has an indication of his existence.
Beauty? What you find beautiful will be different from me.
Truth? Truth is just what you can show to be true
Morality is subjective as well. Different culture think different about morality. Even people from the same culture have slightly different morals
The amount of logical fallacies in this video is enough to put Donald Trump's tweets to shame...
What a burn
🤣
@@idolevin8795Mock. Insult. It doesn’t matter. Those things will not save you from the wrath of the Lord. Turn to Jesus Christ.
@@joemiller5922 joe mama
@@joemiller5922 No benevolent god would know such as feeling as wrath, so your god is an evil one.
"You can't see it because I say you aren't capable of seeing it" "Why can't you see what I see"
Believe, then your eyes will open.
@@rprestarri tru
I mean… if you can prove it to me then sure. For example, if I see a puddle on the ground, I can reasonably assume it rained. But I cannot prove that to someone who isn’t there with me. If you want to assume, from existence, that god exists, go ahead. But that’s not proof. It supports my theory too, is the issue, because I agree that we exist.
You see starvation, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, children cancer wards, 20000 children under the age of 5 that die every single day of the year but fear not as you see god and know that the universe was created with you in mind and he is on your side.
I see the world all around me but I don't see an invisible, unknowable, Hebrew god, or his son Jesus hiding in the clouds. He sounds like make believe to me.
Well you're clearly looking in the wrong place if you're searching the clouds.
Unknowable? Where did you come to that conclusion? I can say the Titanic sounds like make-believe to me that doesn't make me right
You say you can see the world all around you, but how hard are you looking? DNA is complex, coherent information. That can only come from a designer.
Nature had a beginning, a cause. Something that exists outside of it. Start thinking about things more deeply and you'll see that God's been all around you the whole time. Cheers
I don't SEE sub-atomic particles, atoms, DNA, the laws of physics, etc. I don't know why you think just because you can't visibly see something it isn't real.
"Look at this beauty"
Meanwhile this tornado zips through this religious town killing a handful of people and injuring hundreds.
Damn you, Thor!
What a stupid comment that has nothing to do with what he said.
I could just as easily point out that there are former Christians (believers) that at one time they convinced that the Bible was the inerrant word of God.
But then once they started thinking critically about things and really examining the actual evidence without their faith glasses on its like a switch got flipped on.
It's like eyes were opened.
Accurate for me
I could just ask you to explain everything then. From the beginning of everything and beyond. The questions, the theories, etc from the atheist community get wild with this alone.
The craziest theory I've heard from a atheist is "We came from another dimension or timeline.".
If you'd take off your nihilism googles you'll see some awesome stuff.
That's exactly it. The fundamental divide of this argument is a refusal to even try and see things from another worldview. If more and more people could do that properly sparks wouldn't fly so spectacularly when people come at odds.
The terrifying part of that dilemma is once you've had enough time in both trenches and the question seems to indicate, if not zealously claims that one is right and the other is wrong, you're inevitably moved to pick a side.
How it went for me in *tl;dr* format: I've been a man, I've been a woman, I questioned the Christian God, found Him (and any alternative transcendent being for that matter) unable to satisfy my queries for some time, then recently came back to find out He answered them just fine. I'm well accustomed to "taking off the faith glasses" (that's a perfect way of putting it, ty), especially when critical thought needs more than one way of thinking about something so vast, but I don't throw them away. For once in my life, the truth is too good for that.
@@gangstalker47 And we have. We have a complete and evidenced naturalistic explanation, yet you insert God into a universe that doesn't need Him
They were never christians in the first place.
They were raised christian in christian homes. They were never born again.
A former Christian is an oxymoron.
You cant be unborn again after knowing the Lord.
Jesus keeps his sheep and will not lose a single one.
The "intelligent design" argument doesn't specifically just work for christianity. You can use it for many other religions as well. So the "intelligent design" argument can't specifically refer to the christian yahweh/jehova fett. Like when they make the intelligent design argument mention that their argument cannot be *only* used by christians, and how do they know Odin is not real if they haven't opened up their hearts to him and given him offerings?
bro i think im more confused than i was when i started watching this
He just telling u that if u imagine it, its real but its not because u can't just think of something and then it becomes a reality. (Local athiest)
What he's saying is "Close your eyes and believe hard enough, and the painting will be there. Somewhere. You wont be able to see it, or feel it - but trust me, it is there."
He is the guy who cleans the museum lol
God of the gaps argument, next.
Your problem, like every Christian apologist, is assuming your God is the real one and not Allah or Buddha or Krishna or Zeus or Ra
My entire family believes in God, and most of my friends do as well, so im not against religion when I say im fully Atheist, but I really don't understand how people can see God in anything.
Everywhere I look I just see things that can be explained without, "Oh God just wanted it that way" which is half the arguments I get from people trying to convert me to Christianity.
Also, the history of Christians just throws me off of believing in it.
There were times where they believed all of the old testament, and now they just pick and choose what they want from it to be true, which makes me feel more like it's a fairytale and not something real.
Im asking for anything tangible or explainable that God is the only answer to, otherwise I can't fathom there being one Omnipotent presence that tests people with unfair circumstances and then after people are born into nothing and forced to live a certain way, God then makes them spend eternity being tortured because they could either die or live in a way where they have to be skeptical of people or even fight.
It's not a fair system for someone to be considered all knowing and seeing, as well as someone we should worship, to be using humans as basically toys and then making some suffer for actions out of their control.
Im not trying to make a huge debate or problem, I just want evidence that God is real that can't be answered any other way.
This is why I don’t believe in him either,for a big majority of my life I believed in him and prayed to him daily and now I’m depressed suicidal ,and hate almost everything
Couldn't have said it better myself
@@KeaganRules I was also depressed and suicidal but I kept preserving and believing (learning verses, praying and reading the Bible) and God showed me a way, at the right time and right what I needed
Somehow I discovered the apps woebot (CBT) and PTSD coach (defo a miracle) so I managed to fix myself and actually got 3As on my a level (I really thought I wouldn’t be able to do it)
I definitely agree Mike winger I watched the debate you had years ago and it truly grieved my soul hearing some insensitivity with skeptics and I'm so amazed the level of patience and love you have displayed despite backlash. I would cry hearing people offend our Savior to the depths of how much I've heard you endure, but I know these are things God always wants to equip us in. You give me courage through your videos and I definitely know God places your videos in my life for a reason to edify and strengthen me as well despite all this I just want to tell you that I know that God is smiling at you and he is pleased with all his children 🙏💕 I'm praying that God continues to strengthen you. He is with you and he is for you !
💀
I opened my eyes and saw there was no reason to believe in God, despite what I had been told by all the people around me with their eyes closed.
The beauty, the morality and all that stuff you mentioned have their's simple explanation that is valid for us, sceptics. Read some Dawkin's books, to understand what I mean.
Your argument is a typical example of confirmation bias: you believe in something, and everything you see "proves" your belief. Read about that kind of bias on Wikipedia.
Funny fact: I never saw a single video of ppl trying to convince you there’s no god (I’m sure theres plenty ) , I can’t say that about religious ppl.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s a control need instinct, a projection and a way to fully convince themselves, a way to insure a ticket to heaven or perhaps that new trend polarised things/ideas and use negative emotions to boost view/interactions on socials and of course boost cash 💴
Well of course if you consider only the good things in life this argument becomes easy.
But let me (a nobody) put it this way:
Let's assume there's a god, a just god, a kind god (they are the same entities in this argument), then either A. all the misery in the world (that, reminder are His creation, by definition) has been put there and has been ignored by Him, making him an unjust, unkind god (contradicting the starting assumption) or B. He actively put the misery in the world for whatever reason, rendering him an unjust, unkind god.
The same argument can be done inverting the assumptions.
Therefore either god doesn't exist, or it's not sane to worship Him, unless you are particularly fond of misery that is.
Yeah, when he pointed out the kindness and goodness thing I actually laughed because I as a trans person and a gay person have experienced much more pain, anger, and alienation than kindness from religious people, not all religious people, but more than his argument takes into account
They would say all the misery is a result of the fall of man.
Suffering is the result of rebellion against God’s order.
Why create a world where suffering is possible? Perhaps avoiding suffering at any cost is not the ultimate good. God also chose to suffer
@@senorjimmy so then by that logic that means that God does not love all his creation which flies completely in the face of what is said in the Bible, either it's an unloving God, or a god that is not powerful enough to maintain what is their "order"
@@syrehanmin6342 the bible was incredibly biased. It was written entirely by people who thought it was true. They didn't even cite a credible source.
The more i look around, the more i see science
Science is a human enterprise. It’s technically not real
@@mentalwarfare2038 By that logic, nothing is real. Science is as real as you can get since it involves repeated testing and peer review to validate it. For example, gravity is a phenomenon we can observe and agree exists. We can test that objects falling towards earth will do so at ~ 9.8m/s^2.
When you have no evidence, you think this is an argument for your god.
It’s like you expect hours of content in a short. Here’s some evidence. ua-cam.com/play/PLZ3iRMLYFlHuhA0RPKZFHVcjIMN_-F596.html
A prophet in the Book of Mormon 2000 years ago described the latter days before Christ comes as being very similar. Unbelief and faithlessness among the believers and unbelievers alike. This analogy holds at every level.
Bruh, all 5 building blocks of life are floating around in space right at this time. Life started on its own.
God is just explaination for those who don't understand science or just wanna believe what they want. If you keep forcing your beliefs onto others you will create a hate.
How is he forcing anything in this video? He's not. He's offering an explanation of a perspective, aka being respectful in establishing a conversation. If you're not willing to discuss, that's on you not him, akin to his analogy of someone standing in a room with their eyes closed.
@@Undomaranel people always keep bullshitting about God and how great he is. He doesn't exist. And i am tired of coming across these videos
@@Undomaranel
Well, as someone who doesn't see god in everything, I find it almost condescending when he says that, as if it was obvious
I'm a theist. To stretch the analogy I do believe there is a painting in the room. My problem is that everyone who claims to have seen the painting has described totally different subjects.
"Some people are good therefore there is a skydaddy"
Purposefully mocking and misrepresenting...
Strawman much
@@tyronesmith2394 Open your eyes and read a science book, lol.
@@Rastei Since you have read so many show me a science books that disproves the Bible. You need to read more than k-12 science books
@@Letsbesalty You actually only need a grade 4 education to disprove the bible and debunk the entire religion.
Ok you convinced me, Zeus is real!
He is the most believable of what would happen if someone had ultimate power
convinced me that atheism is real.
It is hard to be charitable here. This video boils down to skeptic being not openminded enough and taken too much for granted. It doesn't really lead anywhere and is hardly more than self gratification for being smart and awesome.
Especially since the same argument can be made from the other point of view. Christians take so much for granted about the world they live in (basically answering all questions with "god done did it" - polemically speaking) that they aren't even ready to take in all the evidence for naturalistic explanations.
This is just empty rhetorics to appeal to the in-group.
So you have several different points here.
One is that I’m saying skeptics take too much for granted. Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Another is a personal attack. You say I’m merely saying I’m smart. I disagree but I also will ignore this personal attack because it ignores my point and guesses about my motives.
Another point you make is that the argument works both ways. That Christians “take so much for granted” when they say “god done did it.” This is an interesting rebuttal. We can both probably agree that Christians saying “God did it” about every conceivable thing is silly. But it’s a different thing when they are saying it about the timeless, spaceless, incredibly powerful, and intelligent cause of the universe. When they say it about moral goodness seeming to point to a personal moral source. When they say it about the brilliance in intricate detail in the universe, physics, chemistry and biology. When they say it about human self consciousness. When they say it about these things it’s hardly a throwaway phrase. It’s not like I heard a sound outside and, not knowing where it came from, assumed “God did it.” To view these issues that way is to close your eyes to the topic at hand.
God is a sufficient explanation for those things. Other explanations are either insufficient or more ad hoc. We’re just doing logic at this point. Mocking God as a possible explanation for everything the way you have here is tantamount to “god done didn’t do it.”
@@MikeWinger I don't intend to go into a discussion here (has nothing to do with the topic or you specifically, I just don't do that in general on the internet) but I appreciate the time you took to answer in this semi-long post.
There is mostly one thing I don't want to leave uncommented: I didn't intend to attack you personally. What I was trying to describe there was not a mindset of you personally feeling like a damn smartbutt but more of social ritual that basically every group I have ever known likes to engage in - that is to make rhetoric points that don't really serve anything other than getting others to agree to strengthen the group cohesion - so everyone can join in to feel "smart and awesome" together so to speak. My non-native english might fail me here in bringing my point across as intended.
Whether that was your intention or not, I really don't care too much. That is how it came across to me, that is all.
tldr: I didn't mean to attack you so my bad if that was how I made it sound.
@@MikeWinger 'God' is not a better explanation unless you can explain God, claiming this god ALWAYS existed without any good evidence that he/it exists isn't very convincing,
think the best answer is,we just don't know,
although it's not an answer theists like.
@@frankwhelan1715 You just did exactly what he was talking about in the video. It was the entire point.
Edit - The universe explains God. It's all around us. That's what he is saying.
@@mobileore "I don't intend to go into a discussion here," I just want to make my unsolicited negative comments and then flee, without having to defend my position or justify my attack.
I never was more blind when religion told me my eyes were opened
The journey from admiration of the natural world around us to belief in God, is a leap of faith. Attempting to prove God by other arguments (eg KALAM etc) is unnecessary if faith is all that is needed (as per John 20:29)
That depends on your definition of faith. The biblical definition of faith does NOT mean belief in absence of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. It means using the evidence around you and what you know to come to a reasonable conclusion: trust in God.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 John 20:29 doesn't require using the evidence around you. Simple belief is enough.
@@waywed I stand by the Biblical definition of faith. Jesus was constantly providing and pointing to evidence to be the basis of people's belief/trust/faith in Him.
In John 20:29 Jesus is specifically referring to people who haven't physically seen the risen Christ. He's not referring to people who have seen zero evidence.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 ..........and Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Nothing about evidence there either! And even when evidence is mentioned it is nothing physical - Hebrews 11:1 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
@@waywed If you're choosing your own definition of faith that doesn't include evidence, that's fine, it's just not Biblical.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Matthew 22:37
Acts 1:3
Acts 17:31
Bro the fact animals exist is not proof of there being a God . Just because there is beauty in nature doesn’t mean there is a God . I think that’s the biggest problem with this debate people don’t understand what the word evidence means.
We do not look at the world and have no explanation.
Why do theists always end up misrepresenting skeptics?
The other way around too
People say, "So many holes!" Yet can't be bothered to point them out.
Mike Winger has never had an argument that couldn't be countered by a clever eight-year-old.
That's so true. But I think it is also the case that a lot of them see the evidence but take it as a challenge to disprove the evidence.
What evidence, may I ask? Enlighten me. The evidence I am aware of has been refuted
@@fuse2563 what evidence are you speaking about? And what refutations to that evidence that prove undeniably there is no God?
@@udoaver9726 First, I never affirmed that there was no God. That is a claim I cannot back by evidence, so I don't know why so many atheists blatantly make that claim.
The evidence I spoke of was the best evidence for it. Moral, teleological, ontological, design, Bible prophecy, Bible unity, messianic prophecies, non-biblical accounts of Jesus, Kalam cosmological, ect
This comment would be too long if I were to refute all of them/provide explaining theories , so I'll do a few of them.
Moral: I agree that atheism has no objective morality, and cannot without God. I believe that we all intrinsically believe in objective morality. However, I believe that sense was given to us through evolution, an evolutionary illusion of objective morality.
Kalam: The first premise can't be backed by solid evidence. The same laws of cause and effect don't necessarily apply to outside of the universe.
Bible prophecy: The Dead Sea Scrolls carbon dating proves that the prophecies were written before the event spoken of. My issue with them is that none of them have a time frame. They are prophecies that are likely to happen given enough time, and the failed prophecies are interpreted as a metaphorical fulfilment instead of its clear literal meaning, or are said to be future prophecies. Give it a few more thousand years and I bet we'll see several more fulfilments, like the destruction of Damascus overnight. If it's not overnight, they'll say it's meant for future after being rebuilt, or a metaphorical night like Jesus' three days three nights ect.
Messianic prophecy: There is no evidence that Jesus actually fulfilled any of them, we just have a bunch of texts claiming that He did, if He even existed, fulfil prophecies. And failed prophecies are ones 'meant for the Second Coming' if indeed they were telling the truth on that particular matter.
Jesus' existence: All we have are documents either repeating the hearsay of the time, or known forgeries, and none of them are contemporary.
Bible unity: This could've easily been brought about by in person discussions and controversies.
Ontological: Just because I can conceive of something doesn't mean it exists
Beauty: Beauty is subjective
ect
@@fuse2563 To fully trust in God, you will get to a point where the only answer is faith. Now, this does not have to be blind faith like many may claim. Back to your main point about all the evidence you have seen being refuted, I have a couple questions for you. Where does morality come from? Surely it can't be evolution because evolution is basically "survival of the fittest" or the stronger species killing a weaker one, and where is the morality in that? Also, what standard do you have for morality, and how do you know that your idea of "good" is actually good? For the sake of this conversation, let's say there is no God. If there is no God, life doesn't truly matter. I'm not saying someone can't bring meaning to life. For instance, someone could argue that they find meaning in family, sports, or a passion of theirs. While this may be true, it still doesn't matter at all. The reason it doesn't matter at all is because if they is no God, and we are just stardust bumping into stardust, then there is no true meaning, and this conversation we have will make zero impact on anything, in the end. Finally, if there is no God, then evolution has lied to us, or made us believe that things may actually matter, when they really don't, and this is where nihilism comes into play.
@@fuse2563 I'm sorry I don't have as much time to respond to your comment and go over everything you've said, but your refutations aren't definitive, in person discussions to explain away biblical unity across the country in such a short period of time would be hard to do, it would make more sense if we found copies of corrected works in those areas instead of them being consistent from the get go. Of course you can get into the claims of copiest errors and therefore the Bible is untrustworthy but I think the many surviving copies we have preserves it better than any other written text we have from ancient history.
If Jesus ever existed? Sure but apply the same level of skepticism to other historical figures and you can't be confident in their existence either... Socrates never wrote anything down but was only referenced and talked about by his two students.
Probably the best evidence necessitating a God is our physical universe observably began and we know something doesn't come from nothing. I know people like to jump to quantum physics and other sciences that aren't well studied/grounded and I've got a coworker that likes to talk about that study where they've observed captured light in a vacuum (not a true vacuum as there was elements of all kinds of things in there and energy) and they claim theyve "basically observed something from nothing." But not really.
Prove to me that I'm not everything in this world, including god.
Have you ever encountered a word that you needed to look for its meaning? That's your proof
@@royanque8374 if the god is omnipotent, can he make a stone he cannot pick up?
@@trueetiquette if you can't solve this problem, then that's another proof that you're not everything in this world, including god.
@@royanque8374 oh, but I'm asking you.
@@trueetiquette that's red herring
Its actually like this. Your eyes are closed and I tell you there's a painting in front of you and I tell you to believe me no question asked. A skeptic will slowly open there eyes and realise there's no painting just a play picture frame. But because your so scared to open your eyes(scared to ask and find answers to questions) you'll forever keep your eyes closed. That's the same thing. The basis of your belief is practically because you choose to keep your eyes shut and believe that there's a painting in front of you even if you have shallow clues and little evidence
but that's not how Christianity is , your straw manning Christianity, thomas who was a disciple did not believe jesus rose from the dead, people did not believe jesus in his own hometown, all people did was question jesus even the disciple john the bapist even asked jesus was he the christ or should we keep looking for another one, and funny enough Jesus use evidence aka healing and the miracles, again just because some churches tell you not to question god that's not all church the bible even tell you to test the spirits nobody was going around in just. believing in just anything
"da byuudi of de wurl aroundju" oh this again
What evidence? Even Catholics don't have evidence. I asked my own mother why she believes in God and she said "faith". Makes sense.
Your mom was wrong. m.ua-cam.com/video/DrgSbFhHCmU/v-deo.html
@@MikeWinger ...the Kalam? Really, that old cr0ck of sh1t? There is no indication the universe began to exist so obviously the physics consensus also doesn't say it did, AND quantum mechanics has particles appear without a cause, AND the entire argument makes no mention of any gods let alone yours. Even one of the authors cited regarding the science by the argument's main proponent William L Craig has spoken out against the blatant misrepresentation, but of course the apologists don't care whether it's true as long as the arguments fits their narrative. See _William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum,_ at 1:05:17.
The "switch" that flips, as you say, where suddenly you go from seeing no evidence for God to seeing it everywhere, must then surely just go back to it being as simple as a person just choosing to believe, or wanting to believe, irrespective of evidence. What is there hasn't changed, only their perception has. They made a choice to believe. Interesting.
FYI I am not religious, however this was an intersting video. Hope you have a good day.
"To believe is to see"
The Scriptures speak about this over and over!
“For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’”
Matthew 13:15 NKJV
God has made it very simple, you can see His eternal nature, people just have closed their eyes and shut their ears and refuse to understand with their heart. You must repent first and change your mind to think outside of this world, remember, Jesus told the crowd: “You don’t understand my speech because you are of your father the devil.”
To understand God, you MUST renew your mind and not be conformed to the pattern of this world, that means changing the way you think and view things. You must conform to Him, not having Him conform to you.
Blessing and Amaniyah!
Why trust the scriptures and not Theogony? Or the Poetic Edda?
@@levongevorgyan6789 other religions are full of inconsistencies and contradictions, the Bible has none. People find “contradictions” because they misinterpret, are misinformed/misled, they don’t pay attention to wording/definition to certain words, and/or they take verses/teachings out of context. Other religions are false, not true, and unfulfilling (which is quite obvious in their doctrines and teachings) while the Bible/God/Christianity have proved over and over to change lives and faith for over 3000 years. I hope this answered your question :)) God bless! ❤️
@@That.little.dinosaurOh please.
Not only is the Bible frequently copying those other religions, but it has plenty of contradictions.
Your God is claimed to be all powerful and yet the text says: “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”
All powerful and yet can't drive out charioteers of iron.
Seriously. Your religion is false. Science disproves it. History disproves it. The existence of the MODERN WORLD Disproves it:
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” - Matthew 16:28
So who standing there is still alive?
@@levongevorgyan6789 I believe you are using the KJV of the verse. I suggest reading NIV or ESV to get a clearer understanding of what the verse means. It wasn’t God’s fault that the Israelites couldn’t drive out those people, it was actually the Israelites’ doubt and laziness. If you turn to Joshua 17, you’ll see they were complaining about the land God had given them even though they hadn’t carried out His commands/mission. Joshua told them exactly what God already told them to do, but their unbelief, laziness, and doubt led them to not get the plains of the hill country.
I also don’t see why you think the Bible doesn’t line up with history or science. Many agree the Bible is historical and scientific. There is an ancient document that was written around the same time as the 10 plagues from the Exodus story (Ipuwer Papyrus), and Egyptologist David Rohl (who doesn’t even claim to agree with Christianity) agrees that the stories of Joseph and Moses are very accurate and there is evidence concerning the slaves in Egypt. There is historical evidence of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (eyewitnesses and historical documents). Josephus wrote about Him, Tacitus wrote about Him, and Lucian wrote about Him. There is also an ancient letter (Mara Ben Serapion letter) written around 1 century AD. It mentions the Jews’ downfall and lines up extremely well with Matthew 24-25. So, the Bible clearly lines up with history and science. The Bible also talks about how the life of any living organism is found in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), in Job 40-41 we believe God is talking about dinosaurs, (along with many other creatures which have gone extinct). The Bible talks about the water cycle (Job 36:27-28), how the earth is round and floats in space (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7), and so much more. Scientists didn’t learn these things until years later, this is evidence to show that the Bible truly is supernatural. However, I suggest you do your own research on these things, please don’t take my word for it. There are historians and scientists who do believe the Bible is supernatural, so don’t rule out the Bible so quickly :)
and I can say without a doubt that Christianity is its own religion and hasn’t copied practices from other ones. You can draw close similarities like animal sacrifice (I do want to note we don’t practice animal sacrifice because it isn’t part of our worship anymore since Christ died - Romans 7:6. Animal sacrifice is found in the Old Testament) or praying, but that doesn’t mean Christianity copied other religions. If you really think about it, Christianity is really different. For example, God does not want us to make an image of Him, so we serve an invisible God. People called on the name of the LORD long before any other religion was formed (Genesis 4:26). We can also assume animal sacrifice was already in place because of the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3-4).
When Paul was preaching in Athens, the people there said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,” (Acts 17:18-20). This proves that the background of Christianity and Jesus Christ Himself did not compare to the other gods/religions at the time. Even though there are close similarities between Christianity and other religions, that doesn’t mean it copied other religions. The rooster’s crow doesn’t cause the sun to come up.
Y'know, in my experience people who make everything about themselves are called narcissists.
You know this is quite funny because all he has to do is reverse the analiogy and you got how we see you guys closing your eyes to evidence because a world with God is a world where your life has meaning and death isn't the end too bad the world isn't a happy place
To end it
"The sacreist thing in the world to me would be me being correct" and thrers a 99.9% chance I am
"The Theory Of Everything"
Everything begins with God
In the first chapter of His book God identified the ultimate theory a theory of Everything.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God created man in His image and likeness.
A scientific model is an image or likeness of something that is used to observe or make measurements of what it is modeled after.
Hypothesis
If all things are of God, or the absence of God, then man should be able to measure anything
Claim: Man can measure anything.
Evidence
The measurements of all sciences
Hypothesis
If Man is capable of understanding anything, then he is or must possess an ultimate tool.
Claim: Man is or does possess an ultimate tool one capable of understanding anything.
Evidence:
The Conscious Mind. All knowledge acquired and produced therein.
Method
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
@@taniscampbell5452 some problems, you have to both be able ro strictly define all those terms, and to be science it must be falsifiable.....and to be useful science it should also make predictions
@@75ur15
Well let's walk through it
Which part is loosely defined?
Which hypothesis isn't falsifiable?
Which hypothesis is lack a prediction?
@@taniscampbell5452 a couple of thoughts, first define God, second, we can't necessarily know or understand everything....the "hypothesis" doesn't follow to the conclusion made.....one example to help you
If all things are of God or the absence of God, we should be able to measure anything
Fitst; define God, second, we can't measure everything, third, please explain how the measurement is exclusive to that explanation, or how that makes a prediction of something unknown......last bit, that is no more useful than saying, all things are made of pink fairies or not, if they are, we should be able to measure anything, we can measure anything (not agreeing just using your words). It doesn't define pink fairy in a way that would explain the supposition that such a fairy would have any effect on anything else, especially our ability to measure.
Most definitions of God that are uses are not falsifiable (no conditions allowed for that if true, would prove it wrong) anymore than anything can prove the idea of god existing equals our abilities could be proven wrong. You started with something known already, not a test you could run after, and claimed a meaning for it that has no basis in evidence.
@@75ur15 First God the Creator God of the Bible this is part of the presupposition of theory or its starting point. The causation of all things.
Second what cannot be measured?
Third what other life form can do science?
Man is the measurable part. Or rather Man's ability to measure anything. The part that can be tested.
It predicts that if something is unknown Man can come to know it.
I suppose you could use pink fairies but how would how being an image or likeness of a pink fairy grant man the ability to measure anything.
The Theory isn't a question of God it is a question of Man's scientific ability and of the tool that makes that possible.
You could falsify this theory with another life form capable of science or something that could never be understood.
I love to hear your theory.
Yeah... We don't first come to the conclusion and then find evidence for it... We follow the evidence.. And we don't just "take it for granted" And think things don't have an explanation. We are always looking for an explanation, and there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the things you mention that don't require a God.
Well i brought my friend, closed my eyes and asked him to tell ke if he could see a painting and he said yes soo proven.
"Easy to spot a yellow car when you are always thinking of a yellow car.
Easy to spot opportunity when you are always thinking of opportunity.
Easy to spot reasons to be mad when you are always thinking of being mad.
You become what you constantly think about. Watch yourself." Cryptoseneca
2 cor 10:5 take all thoughts captive
So true but reality also dictates the opposite of this as well. However thats all in the script as it teaches the *factual* balance of life. This is why its not only good for the individual but also the collective to stay centered.
Jesus is the Center!
Matt 7:13-14
G2G 🙌 AMEN 🙏
The argument of “who created god” and the argument “what created the Big Bang” are the same exact argument and I will die on that hill
To quote space god
"Then you will die braver then most"
1. Define ‘god’
2. Define ‘exist’
Let’s take it from there
Isn't the argument ment to be you guys defining god
Also the word exists is a weird word to use since its relative depending on what meaning you give it like for example to someone who believes in God he exists in their head but in terms of reality he dosnt
@@diveblock2058 I’m an atheist. I say that thoughts, pain, hunger, etc do not exist, but rather occur. There needs to be a way to distinguish between physical objects around us and these thoughts and sensations. As such, I put all god concepts into the latter category and anyone trying to argue or convince me will need to provide a clear definition and description in a manner that can distinguish this from an abstract concept.
@@diveblock2058
If you say, "I believe in God." it's your responsibility to define it and from the definition is where it's tested to see if valid or not.
Religion aside, "God" has two language definitions:
A. An admired, often influential person. "Michael Jordan is a God of basketball."
B. Emphasis for and to express emotions. "God darnit." (Lol)
Informally, think it also got something to do with a theater. Idk.
Religiously, God also has two definitions.
Christianity - The Creator, The High Authority, The Man who holds the highest body count.
Non-Christianity - Super human being, like superman minus the green rock side effects.
Those are the generalized and basic definitions of God. None of them actually define what any given God(s) is or is not capable of.
@@midnytemassacre i must say i love how you gave Christianity its own segment like this is Christianitys definition of god and heres everyone else
@@diveblock2058
Christianity and other monotheistic religions.*
...better? Lol. I shortened it.
Oookay, so the Cosmological Argument with extra steps. Got it
I’m mean yea, if you don’t even have any evidence why should people, and what about the other interpretations of the Bible, are they wrong?
There is evidence, the bar is set too high for it, there *are* wrong interpretations and there *is* a right interpretation
Like a fish in the water saying where is the water?
“Is there a painting in this room?”
“Yea”
“Prove it to me”
“Touch it”
Can you tell what the painting is by touching
How to save or bookmark these little snippets for future reference?
Ahhhhhh, the good ole "look at the trees" argument. Also, calling the universe "creation" is smuggling in the very thing you're attempting to prove.
Skeptics don't take things for granted and don't say there is no explanation for things. In fact, it's the opposite. The drive is to find the explanation of all things in the reality we live in and we're unwilling to appeal to an explanation that cannot be shown to be true.
When I see “morality” and “goodness” in the world - it never comes from a god but rather a particular person that decided to bring in this morality and goodness. When there’s no person to establish those things - there’s no sign of them at all.
My point - fairness and happiness exists only because people create it, it doesn’t appear magically on its own as if some Devine being has brought it!
The idea of beauty was long explained by the science. Things are beautiful because it is helpful to propagation. Flowers are beautiful because they are literally the plants’ genitalia and their purpose is to attract living creatures in order to make them spread their spores around!
You only focus on beauty and “goodness” forgetting that there’s certainly ugliness and unfairness in this world. If you think the first two things are the evidence of god’s existence then what should we make of the fact that the last two things exist?
@@Whiskerbin
That’s actually what always pisses me off - people tend to attribute good things to God’s will while ignoring all the bad things that happen as well. Like the sports team thanking god for helping them win while ignoring that that means he had made the other team loose….
No Mike, most skeptics started out believing in God.
Yet another Christian providing excuses for not having evidence.
Your so unbelievably indoctrinated by your mythology. There is literally zero proof my man. The way you all need to rely so heavily on faith shows this fact.
Tbh I agree, even the Bible has been proven Fabricated over thousand's of year's
Their could be truth but a lot more fake story's
I'll argument for it as an agnostic.
So obviously everyone knows there isn't undeniable proof that God exists, not to make you know God exists.
But rather there is proof to help you believe that God exists, Because that's what faith is all about, it's not about knowing God, but Believing in God.
That's the problem: no explanation doesn't mean therefore god.
And indeed, it often is like it when people come to believe in god, then they see the evidence. That is conclusion-driven thinking and not how we get to truth.
He did not say that God exists because explanations are missing. He also did not say that we see evidence because we start with a conclusion. By changing the actual statements Mike made, you are, ironically, altering your interpretation of reality to fit your pre-made conclusion.
@@SimpleAmadeus 'And that's all there, without explanation for them [etc]'
' Is it also true that when they came to believe in God they saw tons of evidence for God all over the place? Yeah, that's what I mean.'
@@Zeus-bn3nc
A: The evidence shows God.
B: Atheism is incompatible with the evidence.
His statement is not "B, THEREFORE A". You've changed his two separate claims into a single causal claim that he did not make. Also, the correct causal link between the two claims is "A, THEREFORE B", since the evidence for God invalidates atheism.
Recognizing evidence by knowing the truth is not the same as establishing truth by starting with a conclusion. You're assuming that the conclusion was reached without evidence, which is not the case.
To continue Mike's eyes-closed analogy, once you open your eyes and see the paintings, you immediately conclude that there are paintings based on overwhelming visual evidence. After this conclusion, you will be able to learn more and more about the paintings and notice additional evidence that you did not notice before.
You do not open your eyes by starting with a conclusion. You reach a new conclusion by opening your eyes.
it gets a tad frustrating at times. It almost feels like all you can say is "well, just look. The evidence is right in front of your face. This is obvious." but that doesnt convince anyone.
I think Frank Turek has said it best. They don’t want there to be God or they don’t want to be convinced. It’s a heart problem not a head problem.
@@theconservativechristian7308 Yeah,I don't want there to be policemen so I can do some robbing,does that have an affect on the existence of the police?
Indeed. It’s obvious that there are competing and cooperating forces of nature. This is perfect proof of the pagan gods of old, who fought and interacted with each other as the forces of the universe do.
That is as legitimate as your single creator.
Morality is not ‘there without explanation’. Human solidarity to ensure mutual survival is essential for the species.
None of those things Mike Winger mentioned are evidence for the existence of any God, at all. Trying to explain a mystery by adding another mystery is not an argument, it's wishcasting.
Once again Mike proves there is a gulf between faith and reason.
The only problem is that this analogy could be reversed in a case for no God. They can claim our eyes are closed to the evidence against God, but their eyes are open.
It is quite funny because we also use this analogy as a way to explain confirmation basis
What I think would help an atheist/agnostic to find God is not to say "Show me the evidence", but to instead say "How do I find God?".
One of them implies an active resistance against God, and one of them implies an actual pursuit of God which proves in the very action that a person really wants to find him.
When you ask somebody what they want, you can't always tell by the verbal answer what one wants, because the verbal answer ties into a person's self-image or how a person likes to view himself, but how a person wants to view himself is not always accurate. However, when you ask a person what it is he wants, more specifically, one should look at his own actions which will inform him what he really wants. In what direction does the person face? How does the person orient himself? And what actions follow that orientation?
You might have a large list of arguments to fortify your unbelief. You might have prepared scripted responses to theistic argumentation. You might be able to instantly give all of the reasons why you don't believe.
However, *where is the part of you that wants to FIND God?*
You tell me, why CAN God exist? Why DOES God exist? What is THE ANSWER to the problem of evil? Will your actions pursue taking the initiative upon yourself to search for the answer yourself, or have you decided in your unbelief that you have your "answer"? Or have you decided that you're going to let someone else search for an answer on your behalf so that you can resist it once they present it to you? In what way are you orienting yourself, and what subsequential actions follow from that orientation?
So you tell me, why CAN God exist? Why DOES God exist? What is THE ANSWER to the problem of evil? What have you found from your own initiative in pursuing God?
The question is, are you truly searching for him, or are you avoiding him?
Why have all of these prepared responses against theists, but you wouldn't allow yourself to find an answer?
The moment you're ready, then you won't even need the help of someone else to help you find God, you will find him for yourself, not just a formidable argument for his existence, but you will find the actual Person.
Jeremiah 29:13 - And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
James 1:8 - A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
As an atheist, may I ask you a question?
@@quaaludes7898 Instead of asking me the question, pursue God with the goal of asking him the question.
Coming to me only creates a middle man between you and God. You're creating a wall of separation between you and God already...
You don't need me, just cut out the middle man and go directly to God. Asking me the question assumes that I found the answer on my own initiative. Therefore, *you become that very person your wanting me to be on your behalf.*
@@Bi0Dr01d I've been a Christian most of my life, so please trust me when I say, I've sought God out. I've searched hard and deep, and only come up with more questions. I initially got thinking after I finished reading the Bible as a teenager. I wondered how every major religion has their followers read a book, and how I was told the Bible is the only correct one. It really got me thinking, and this is while studying at a Christian school (literally called the cathedral school). I thought about Greek and Norse mythology - Thor, Zeus etc. They were seen as Gods, they were parts of religions for millions of people, who KNEW their belief was correct. And now we confidently say they're mythology. It really confused me. Then I started thinking about modern religion. How do I know my beliefs are the correct ones from the hundreds of religions today, and of the thousands of religions throughout history. And it dawned on me: i don't, and there's no way to know for sure. So why was i Christian? Well i realised it's because I was born in a Christian country to Christian parents and went to a Christian school. What if I was born in a Muslim country to Muslim parents? Well i wouldn't follow Christianity, I'd follow Islam!
I think you get the idea. I've search for God long and hard throughout my life, I've asked the fundamental questions and the answers are nothing but vague and dismissing. Can you blame me for losing my belief?
@@quaaludes7898 I find that interesting that you're not just internally disagreeing and living your own life, you're wanting other people to see it through this lens that a person cannot find out what is true in which you're wanting other people's thoughts to conform to the way you think, or influence the way other people think, and that would imply you're evangelizing.
The issue with your talking points is, as it would seem, an unbeliever at some point saw your struggles and capitalized on them or sowed seeds in your mind in which you are now *repeating what you heard from another atheist* which led to you having an anti-faith faith. What you may not realize is, *what you have right now is exactly the same thing you had before,* it is only an opposite version of the same thing. It is an anti-faith faith.
You were a Christian because you were born in a Christian home. Since all the reasoning you're expressing came from another atheist because these are all the exact same talking points from other atheists, then you're only an atheist because you were influenced by other atheists. It's the exact same thing.
- I used to be a Christian
- every religion is just as dedicated
- Which god? Thor, Zeus, etc.?
- Everyone's in disagreement. Everyone can't all be right.
- There's no way to know the truth
- if you were born in Muslim country, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in Christian country, you would be a christian.
- I'm asking other people questions in hopes that they have searched for God on my behalf but I will not continue my search for God but will just ask other people questions and make excuses for my unbelief when other people don't answer a question that I'm no longer pursuing an answer for.
We have heard all of these talking points before. *You're not saying anything new, you're saying things that were taught to you by unbelievers.* None of these are your own thoughts, they are influenced by unbelieving mindsets. These are scripted responses you're saying, and it's quite apparent that it's not the first time you have made this speech. You've practiced it and prepared it for the purpose of evangelism.
Nothing has really changed in your unbelief, it's the same basic approach in a different wrapper.
This is why I would say both your positions in your past life as a Christian and now are wrong because you're repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, but you believe that you're making a change simply because the title "Christian" changes to "atheist", but it's the exact same thing in it's equally opposite form, and therefore exposes that there was a problem in your approach when you believed in Christianity and that you did not need to leave Christianity, you needed to change your approach and how you approach your Christian beliefs.
Yes, I know that you thought about it in a way that led to your unbelief, but I'm saying that the way you're looking at it is not the right way to look at it. The reason why what you're saying seems convincing is because you're looking at (some partially) true observations, but you're coming to incorrect conclusions by those observations.
Think about a person stranded in the middle of the water on a small boat. He can focus on all of the very TRUE observations of how everything looks hopeless, how he doesn't have a paddle to paddle his boat, there's no wind to push his sail, and there's no food. He can get so caught up in these TRUE observations that he becomes paralyzed by them and therefore stops fighting for his life because he's drawn into his thoughts.
However, another person makes a Free Will choice to resist his own tendencies to look at positive things, such as the fact that he still has strength, or has air in the balloon or perhaps other resources he can use to build tools or weapons in which there are two different outcomes.
So the issue is *PERCEPTION.*
I understand what you're saying, but you're being deceived...
You don't realize that I'm answering your question in my last post, and my last post responds to this post you're posting. I'm trying to show you something that I do not believe you seen before, and to the degree you're listening will be to the degree in which you will receive answers.
This is why I changed nothing in what I said before. The moment you're ready, you won't even need my help or anyone else's help to find God.
There's a mystery in a structure of how things work, and just because you're a Christian does not mean that you picked up on this when you believed. Now that you know that I've heard what you said, now it's your turn, I need you to listen to me now.
I need you to go back and read my last post and listen...
@@Bi0Dr01d Thank you for seeing my point of view, I assure you I made those realisations myself. Asking logical questions shouldn't be something people should suppress, the more critical thinking the better. debate is *always* a good thing. I'll re-read your passage when I get a chance.
As believers to see (God working) through you, the evidence of your faith, seek His will daily.
1 John 3:7 "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous."
The correct analogy is:
You with your eyes closed tell me there is a paint in the room.
You open your eyes and there is no paint at all in the room.
And thats it. The room is the real world and the paint is your god belief.
Or you could just live with the fact that god is just an idea that lives in your head. It’s totally ok, if it gives you strength or offers you peace, why not? But stop trying to make god „real“. He isn’t. It’s just a way how people deal with the harsh reality of life.
To be fair, the phrase "God isn't real" can't be proven; not without strict disprovable definitions for "god"......it is fair to say no God or Gods have sufficient evidence to support proof of existence to the general population
Observance of the world around me is where my testimony begins
For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been seen clearly since the creation of the world, being understood through that which He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
Odin wants it emphatically known that life WAS NOT created by Yahweh! The endless slaughter, violence, and brutality of our world make it blatantly clear a sadistic god of war is in control! And those who think otherwise are without excuse!
A simple appearance would make a relationship possible.
@@JamesRichardWiley Jesus
@@JamesRichardWiley man how simple is this concept. Why don't they get this? If God truly loves us then show up, if you can't do that atleast don't say you love us.
@@Kenpachi_White707 He showed up about 2000 years ago. People didn't like Him, and chose to kill Him.
Why do the people who supposedly have their eyes open describe contradictory paintings? The descriptions have some things in common (provided that the people in question believe in the same book that describes the painting), but vary greatly and are not compatible with each other.
When the goats ask when they failed to see God in Matthew 25:44, he answers in 25:45 that it was when they weren't looking to the disadvantaged. We fail to see God because we're looking for the wrong thing. I like Pastor Winger's analogy, because I've absolutely met those people. There you say, "Look at the artwork," and then they complain that they were looking for a painting when you were talking about a statue.
WOW that's a good way to put it.
I see no reason for a god to remain hidden from his creations and expect them to form a relationship. That's unfair.
@@JamesRichardWiley I will take from your response that you did not read what I wrote. What were you looking for when you were looking for God? How does that compare to what the goats are pointed to in Matthew 25:45?
@@JamesRichardWiley but he isn’t hidden everyone wants this godly experience and a magic act. If God did that he’d be serving us
@@thatoneguy1299 there is a difference between giving evidence, doesn't have to be magical.....and being no better evidenced than any of the pantheons of old that (almost) no one believes in
Long story short, God is everywhere in everything that is good.
Oh thank goodness I thought that sending bears to maul children or sanctioning the death of millions was bad! 😇🙏Off I go to commit genocide!
I suggest watching TheraminTrees, Prophet of Zod, Viced Rhino, Aron Ra, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Jimmy Snow, and Tell Tale.
Let's say there is a blind man in the room, how would they know anything is in the room?
They feel around, they ask questions if someone is in the room or not, if no answer comes, they might talk to themselves, there are different tricks of the mind to trick you into thinking that the thoughts it creates comes from somewhere else.
We have explanation and tests for all of these that you mentioned, especially morality, lack of morality and different morality.
So how do we test for your God, not just a diestic one.
All religion is is a trick, once you understand how it's being done all that is left is disgust and pity at the people using it to manipulate others.
The test I've heard religious folk suggest are extremely susceptible to biases, manipulation, and other systematic errors.
The thing is no religion has evidence beyond "we exist isn't that neat!"
There are 15 possible explanation for the universe, try one of those.
We have examples how the "after life," can be dreamed up by humans, what examples can you give of it being a reality.
Should we measure and consider all the other resurrection stories?
Or should we believe on faith and it coming down from a person of authority that it totally happened?
Or the miracle of horses? It is said in a Greek story how the great God Poseidon made them. Should we use them as evidence for Poseidon being real.
Beautifully said
Your a analogy falls apart because your god is all powerful.
He can "force open a person's eyes" in such a way that is not painful.
If he can't do that, he's not all powerful.
If he doesn't want to, I can't be faulted for not having enough evidence to believe in him.
And if he punishes me for not believing in him (when he could have given me the evidence), then he's not morally good.
You have abundant evidence, but you willfully deny it.
@@kathleennorton6108
That's not true.
Can a person wilfully deny that there is a force keeping them on the ground?
Couldn't your god give me evidence that is undeniable?
Why hasn't he done that?
Ah there's all this beauty without any explanation, oh wait yes there is, that's what science is explaining everything
Is funny how it put images that we have thanks to science lol.
"Guys god exists because you can think he exists by looking in nature and goodness I tHiNk tHiS iS oBvIoUsLy a pRoOf"
Bring the painting to them for them to touch
"these things exist, so there is a god" mate, that's not how it works. All the good in the world from people are just a result of history and genetics, like that doesn't make sense. The empathy from humans is an evolutionary advantage that allows us to thrive, and it comes from our evolved intellect, not some god.
Also, if there has to be a god to create these things, who/what created god huh? see it just doesn't work.
Him To Why I'm a skeptic: Because y'all don't feel the love and kindness made by "god"
Me when I became a skeptic: 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗵𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗶𝘁𝘆. 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 👁👄👁
Don’t start on Hinduism it has more than 33 million gods 🤣
@@KumkumBeats And then there's Egyptian Mythology and swapping out gods a lot- 💀💀💀
@@ReecesCrushedToPieces and the Japanese gods too 💀
"Basically a deity" 🤣
You either are or aren't. There's no demi-Deity in this one. Not even Jesus himself lol.
What's the difference between a cult and religion?
Oh my, you have explained that so beautifully! What an amazing answer to that question
His argument is literally a redirection. Skeptics don't start looking for God, they don't accept that a God exists. So when we say "prove there is a god" they are actually asking for proof. You can't "miss" evidence. If it's evidence it can be shown to anyone under any circumstances and it would be obvious. Nothing elegant in this video. Just classic misdirection
No it’s the most pretentious way to explain it
Explained that beautifully?? Youre kidding right? He used a close youre eyes and prove to me a painting is there analogy to try to explain why god exists. As an agnostic this arguement pushes me in the opposite direction. And im sure it does for many others. Hence all the comments
@@JAGL716 your view is your view and your are entitled to it. I’ve got mine and I like the way he explains it
@@mickeydo23 i mean i guess man... Seems very pretentious to me
The real problem here is that Winger is attributing motive where he has no idea where people are coming from (I.e. skeptics have their eyes closed/deny what is before them). This is simply and emphatically wrong. I was a believer, converted from a life of drugs and broken family, went to Bible college to be a missionary, devoted 25 years of my life to Christ in, yes, a loving relationship with the savior. I am now, after devotion and study an atheist toward the hideous Christian god. I’m not all Rom. 1:18ff suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. I am overtly convinced Bible god does not exist. However, mike does say “prove to me that there is *a* god”. This is a problem- Bible god rides on the coattails of general godness. Toward an unknown deity, I am agnostic. Toward Jesus-Yahweh I’m a strong atheist.
Must have missed the evidence for Christ crucifixion
@@shidfard Not at all. I’ve read Licona’s book and listened to countless debates including the most recent with Ehrman and Licona. I simply do not find the evidence convincing. Further, there is good reason to doubt the existence of the very god that Christians use as evidence for the resurrection (e.g. “If God exists, the miracle of the resurrection is no problem.”)
if you had a loving relationship with the savior, why did you divorce?
@@leef_me8112 Uhm, this would be more like being in a loving relationship and then waking up one day to realize that the other person had v ever been there in the first place. All the various items and incidents strewn around the apartment and throughout life turned out to really be false connections I had constructed.
@@BigIdeaSeeker Then you never had a relationship with God.
Blessed be the Lord, Who daily loads us with benefits, The God of our salvation ~Psalm 68:19
HE gives us so much. A beautiful sunset, a kiss from a loved one, a belly laugh, a delicious meal, being able to enjoy LOVE. We have so many gifts from Him that we absolutely take for granted.
Satan Killed Christ Jesus (The Gospels are just parables set on Earth & doctrinal warfare later believed as historical):
The pseudograph 2 Pet. 1:16 is pushback against people (likely a group of Xtians who we don't get to hear from) that are saying the Gospels are literary fabrications, and then forges an eyewitness account. Later in 2 Pet. 3:15-16 it mentions that there's things in Paul's letters that do not make sense, which is strange in light of 1 Cor. 3:2 & Heb. 5:12 in which converts are taught things easy to understand.
Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9).
Who in context of what Paul wrote would execute someone for being in human form?
Phili. 2:6-8 "6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself (Isa. 53:12), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross."
Who would NOT kill Jesus if it was made known to them that by doing so it would fulfill God's plan for mankind to have a chance at immortality?
1 Cor. 2:6-8 "6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (Note: "rulers of this age" is reciprocal with Earthly & spiritual powers to the ancient reader)
To Paul a physical resurrection does not inherit God's Kingdom (The Synoptics have a flesh resurrected Jesus).
1 Cor. 15:49 "49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality."
Dirty, or impoverished clothing, and clean, or gleaming clothing were seen as metaphors for Earthly/spiritual bodies in the ancient world. (Mark 14:51-52 "A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.", 16:5 "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.")
Rom. 4:25 "who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." Note: 1 Cor. 11:23 "betrayed" is contextually reciprocal with "handed over" in Greek (Rom. 1:24, :26, :28).
The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth.
Zec. 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua/Jesus (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by.
6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day."
Zec. 6:11-13 "11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them."
Rom. 15:12 "12 and again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope." (Isa. 11:10 LXX).
Isa. 11:1 "1 A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots."
1 Cor. 15:24-26 "24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Jos. 10:24-27 "24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua/Jesus, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (Psa. 110:1/1 Cor. 15:24-28, Rom. 16:20, Heb. 1:13, 2:5-9, 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)"
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6)
Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I
"XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..."
Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
"XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son."
Five Kings= Five Senses (Flesh)
Philo: ON ABRAHAM
"XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses."
Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS
"XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it."
Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III
"(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them."
Don't forget the bone cancer, birth defects, diseases, mental illness, and old age.
Don't leave anything out.
@@JamesRichardWiley unfortunately yes, we all are acquainted with these to some extent… God is always with us through it all, though. I’ve been through enough to know that when He promises to never leave us or forsake us, He means it
@@bleirdo_dude be gone satan and his demons! In Yeshua's(Jesus in Hebrew) name! Leave the person you are inhabiting now!
@@hisnameisiam808 Paul's Christ Jesus and Philo's Divine Word are the same (perceived) OT Character.
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of Creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6)
Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I
"XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..."
Celestial High Priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
"XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son."
Spiritual Kinship/Angel of God (Rom. 8:29, Gal. 4:5-7, :14, Heb. 1:4)
Philo: ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES
"XI ...In reference to which I admire those who say, “We are all one man’s sons, we are men of Peace,” (Gen. 42:11) because of their well-adapted agreement; since how, I should say, could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?"
"XXVIII ...And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s Sons.” (Gen. 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word...."
Note: Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." This could be a cultic title (like Peter/Cephas which means "Rock" could have been, or an idiom) rather than being a biological relation? Paul constantly refers to those "in Christ" as brothers/sisters in a spiritual family.
Good Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES
"XIX ...for they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the pastoral care of God."
"XX But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the Psalms we find a song in these words, “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack Nothing;” (psa. 23:1) therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the divine word, for its instructor,..."
Purification/Forgiveness of Sins/Glorification (1 Cor. 6:11, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6)
Philo: ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II
"XXVI Such then are the figurative meanings which he desires to indicate by the sacred vestments of the high priest;... ...namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;..."
Tested (Heb. 2:18) A Man (Rom. 5:15-19, 1 Cor. 15:45-49)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I
"XXXIX ...For when the sacred word has purified us with the sprinklings prepared beforehand for purification, and when it has adorned us with the select reasonings of true philosophy, and, having led us to that man who has stood the test, has made us genuine, and conspicuous, and shining,..."
Sits Beside God (Heb. 8:1)
Philo: ABOUT NOT MOVING LANDMARKS
"XXXVIII... I say, should such men triumph in and insult the misfortunes of others, having no respect for justice, the ruler (Note: justice/ruler) of human life, who sits by the side of the great Ruler of the universe, who surveys all things with sleepless and most piercing eyes, and sees what is in recesses as clearly as if it was in the pure sunlight?"
The Word is a Covenant (1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:4-6)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book II
"XXXIII ...God, says that he is about to erect firmly his covenant full of grace (and that means his law and his word) in the soul of the just man as on a solid foundation, which shall be an image in the likeness of God, when he says to Noah, “I will establish my covenant with Thee.” (Gen. 9:11) And besides this, he also indicates two other things, one that justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God (Note: justice/covenant), the other that other beings bestow gifts which are different from the persons who receive them;... XXXVI Since then all steadiness, and stability, and the abiding for ever in the same place unchangeably and immovably, is first of all seen in the living God, and next in the word of the living God, which he has called his covenant;..."
Sacrificial Blood (Heb. 12:24)
Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS
"XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, and should in some manner become rational; following the guidance of admonition, and purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it."
Intermediary Agent to Mortals (Rom. 8:34, Gal. 3:19-20, Heb. 12:24)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I
"XII ...who never abandons his faith in God and his invisible comprehension of him, but who keeps to the intermediate divine word, which affords him the best suggestions, and teaches him everything which is suitable to the times. For God, not condescending to come down to the external senses, sends his own words or angels for the sake of giving assistance to those who love virtue. But they attend like physicians to the disease of the soul, and apply themselves to heal them, offering sacred recommendations like sacred laws, and inviting men to practice the duties inculcated by them, and, like the trainers of wrestlers, implanting in their pupils strength, and power, and irresistible vigour. Very properly, therefore, when he has arrived at the external sense, he is represented no longer as meeting God, but only the divine word,..."
Empties (Kenosis) Himself (Phili. 2:7-8)
Philo: Who is The Heir To Divine Things
"XLI ...but in real fact for the whole world which was created by divine wisdom may be consecrated and dedicated, being made a burnt offering of early in the morning and also in the evening. For such a life as this becomes the world, namely, continually and without ceasing to be giving thanks to its Father and Creator, so as to stop short of nothing but evaporating and reducing itself into its original element, in order to show that it stores up and conceals nothing, but dedicates itself wholly as a pious offering to God who created it."
Born of a Woman/Under the Law (Gal. 4:4b), Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24b)
Philo: ON FLIGHT AND FINDING
"XX ...For we say that the high priest (Jos. 20:1-6) is not a man, but is the Word of God, who has not only no participation in intentional errors, but none even in those which are involuntary. For Moses says that he cannot be defiled neither in respect of his father, that is, the mind, nor his mother, that is, the external sense; "He shall not go where there is a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother." (Lev. 21:11) because, I imagine, he has received imperishable and wholly pure parents, God being his father, who is also the father of all things, and Wisdom being his mother, by means of whom the universe arrived at creation (Prov. 3:19-20, 8:22-31); and also because he is anointed with oil, by which I mean that the principal part of him is illuminated with a light like the beams of the sun, so as to be thought worthy to be clothed with garments. And the most ancient Word of the living God is clothed with the word (Law) as with a garment, for it has put on earth, and water, and air, and fire, and the things which proceed from those elements. ...Nor will he “rend his clothes;” (Lev. 21:10) for the Word of the living God being the bond of every thing, as has been said before, holds all things together, and binds all the parts, and prevents them from being loosened or separated."
Philo: A Treatise Concerning The World
"II ...But the eternal law of the everlasting God is the strong and lasting support of the universe. This law being extended from the centre of the world to its furthest extremities, and again back from its extremities to the centre, moves on in the unwearied irresistible course of nature, uniting and binding together all the parts of the universe. For the Father who established it made it to be the indissoluble bond of the universe. Therefore we are naturally led to conclude that the whole earth will not be dissolved by water, which its bosoms contain; nor again will fire be extinguished by the air, nor again will the air be burnt up and consumed by fire, since the divine law has placed itself as a boundary to keep all these elements distinct from one another."
"Why you don't see any evidence for God."
Which god?