How NOT to Debate for God's Existence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 січ 2025
- In this stream we'll go through the opening statements of the recent debate, Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle vs Alex O'Connor and Phil Halper. We'll examine Cliffe and Stuart's opening statement and offer better arguments they could have made. Then we'll examine Alex and Phil's opening statements and go over how we would reply to these arguments.
Link to debate: • LIVE DEBATE: Cliffe an...
🙏 DONATE: inspiringphilo...
Win or lose, we are blessed to have those two as brothers of Christ.
That’s not the point. The point is to stick to your lane
@carlosmuller3565 blessed !!!
Cliffe and Stuart are great at talking to people who are on the fence in the context of a normal conversation, but they are definitely not built for debates.
More like they're great for preying on unprepared students on campuses.
Yeah because they're honest about how horrible your god is.
@@SnakeWasRight "Yeah because they are honest about how horrible your god is" - I have watched a couple of their talks with people on campuses and I have never heard them say that God is horrible, can you provide a link that would confirm what you say please?.
Great at preying on unprepared people at campuses, you mean.
@Thanos-kp5jr they haven't said he's horrible, they just don't obscure the horrible acts of their God. They just say, "yeah he ordered that. God's allowed to do that because he's god."
Most apologists try to say that the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.
IP, that IS NOT a full beard. That's a goatee with chin straps.
Lol! 😂
Facts😂😂😂😂😂
😂
Cliffe is a good preacher but a terrible apologist, I hope Alex can debate more competent people in the future
I think that is quite rude and inaccurate to say he is terrible. I've watched over a hundred of his videos and he holds his own with the college kids quite well. True, he's not a John Lennox or WLC.
It’s not that the knechtles are bad apologists, just not good debaters.
@@curiousgeorge555 well that doesn’t really mean much. I’m, when compared to someone like IP completely inexperienced when it comes to apologetics and can pretty much hold my own against college students.
@@aeraannoyingin their defence debates aren’t the best platform for determining truth. There’s a great video by a UA-camr named “mentis wave” where he talks about why flat earthers make great debaters. Doesn’t add any credit to flat earth but they can debate well.
he purposefully debates these people, it’s the same thing hitchens did. “debate” some pastor from alabhama and dodge any actual intellectual who could give him a challenge. sort of like a boxing title holder only having a good record because they pick their fights
The Knectles always have struck me as preachers as opposed to serious intellectuals. Ofc, we encourage them to speak at the pulpit, but they should stop masquerading as intellectuals.
Mascquerading is a strong word
The last thing evangelicals would want is an intellectual at the pulpit.
Stuart did an ok Job debating Aron Ra a few years back (then again I wouldn't call Aron a "serious intellectual" either, at least not on the level of Than, Dyer, etc, but no hate to him).
They do usually strike me as preachers, I mean have you even listened to them? 'the evidence is...' 'the historical evidence is...' . They don't actually argue man.
Saying that they aren't serious intellectuals is a bit overboard, especially when you don't know how much they've studied. This debate shows Cliffe he's a poor debater, not a poor intellectual. Being a debater requires a different skill set than being an intellectual. One of them is speaking while rushing against time.
As IP said in the beginning of the livestream, debaters can only say so many things within an extremely limited amount of time. People can study as much as they want in their private time, but it's another thing entirely to simplify all that information to fit a specific timeframe.
And as IP also stated at the beginning, Cliffe shot himself in the foot even before the start line when he agreed on this topic itself, because there are too many things to unpack from the Christians side to fit in this short timeframe.
So, he's certainly not a debater, but we can't really say he's not an intellectual.
@satoshiryusei3995 I don't think anyone's insinuating that they aren't intellectuals in some absolute sense (essentially doing what Ra did in their debate and calling them uneducated), rather I think it is more of a broader observation.
These guys aren't scholars, philosophers, biologists, cosmologists, or anything of the sort and they certainly aren't prepared to debate someone like the Cosmic Skeptic.
This is why Alex wont debate someone like Jay Dyer.
Jay Dyer is the Cliffe of Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@zacharyahearn4069 Cliffe isn’t a intellectual he’s a preacher, don’t compare him to Dyer
@ dyer isn’t an intellectual either.
@@zacharyahearn4069how is he not? I’ve never seen anyone so versed in multiple epistemically and ontologically versed subjects
@@deanmccrorie3461 He is an entertainer. He is less equipped than your average Eastern Orthodox priest. He knows just enough to seem like he knows what he is talking about.
He would be the theological equivalent of law drama tv show lawyers. If you aren’t a lawyer they seem like they know what they are talking about.
I love these two, and their conversation with Alex was amazing and way more meaningful than anything that came after. But dude... the debate? I just saw it now and wow, it's freakin' horrid. At the same time, it feels weird that Alex went with preachers instead of apologists like Jay Dyer or David Wood.
@emilianohermosilla3996 Do you think David Wood would be a difficult debate for Alex? From what I have seen of Wood... i don't think he would fair any better than the Knectles
@@danielwallace8015
Watch David’s debate with Aron Rha.
I also would’ve underestimated David. However, give him time to prepare, and I’d say he can amount a thoughtful defense/critique of whatever topic he and Alex agreed upon. :)
Also, as a sidenote, I think David is still best battling Islam. He is truly doing the Lord’s work there.
@FuddlyDud ive seen several of David's videos and never took him seriously even a little bit. He has popped up in other places like Capturing Christianitys review of this very debate and didn't think he sounded like someone that had anything to offer.
I haven't seen his debate against Aron Ra but I did see it with Dillahunty and again... i didn't think he had to offer, and I think Alex is significantly better than Dillahunty.
I hope I am wrong as religious conversations are fascinating and would enjoy a good one.
i suppose Trent Horn doesnt count huh?
or Robert Barron, a literal bishop?
or what about Michael IP Jones himself? is he not a "good debater" now?
maybe just maybe O Connor doesnt invite folks like Jay Dyer
because he is less known for his excugesis
and more for his conspiracy theories?
how about William L. Craig? a literal theologian & formal debater
is it because he exposed the divine command doctrine for the abominable moral justification that it is?
it's almost like you folks don't actually know who O Connor invites
and would seem to rather nitpick Knetchles's 'loss'
by decrying unfairness
even though Cliffe has the humility to admits his lack of knowledge
when he couldn't answer the Problem of Evil sufficiently
at least he's honest. which is a rarity among practitioner of excugesis
instead of coming up with a half-baked Theodicy
that doesn't even explain natural suffering
let alone allign with scripture
@@danielwallace8015I thought the same of Wood a few months ago, he has this caricature "making fun of you" style to him but after a while coming back to his videos and debates, I certainly can say that the guy knows his stuff.
Preaching is not apologetics. Dogma is not discourse.
@@heyman5525 Every perspective has its own dogmas because biases are inherent to everyone, whether they are preaching or not. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former atheist transitioning to what she calls "Cultural Christianity," has noted that one obstacle preventing atheists from being more open to evidence is their tendency to promote their views dogmatically, which limits receptiveness toward evidence for God's existence.
For instance, skeptics often insist on a specific definition of "atheism," yet rarely seem to apply skepticism toward toward their own definition. Instead, it is left up to theists to question it, using the definition to frame the discussion in a way that allows them to steer the conversation.
If we apply your point consistently, it could suggest that skeptics, in general, may inadvertently hinder genuine discourse by not being open to examining their own assumptions.
@Bi0Dr01d Very true. Skeptics often insist that their doubts of something, are more of a certainty. Skepticism is not a substantial counter-argument. If we doubted every scientific hypothesis we would never discover anything.
@@heyman5525 Yes, you're pointing to an issue that I would call "hyper-agnosticism". Many times to deny a conclusion that points to God's existence, the skeptic might use an argument: "we don't know for certain", and while in many cases this can be true, our lives are not based on what we know for certain, they are based on what is either most likely the case or what is most reasonable to conclude based on the available data, and if the data from a given theistic argument better supports the conclusion that God exists then the alternative, then believe in God is therefore rational, and the Skeptics argument, although true, would be invalid to deny the conclusion.
It moves the goalposts by requiring absolute certainty, and this would be hyper-agnosticism, which may be one of the main core arguments Skeptics use to deny arguments for Theism.
what evidence is there that a god, specifically an all loving god, probably exists?@@Bi0Dr01d
I admit it, I had doubts about my faith after that debate. But Christ showed me again, that Atheism is not logical
Alex has been on a bit of a dishonest tirade from my estimation. First debating D'Souza (who as far as debating religion, may as well be an atheist). And then debating Cliffe who doesn't really possess the resources for apologetics. Don't let Alex' choice of interlocketers hurt your faith. Winning a debate doesn't make you right, but we should also have an open mind.
The thing about the Knectles is that they are good when it comes to conversations in the context of providing answers. But I feel like in a debate sense they are overly simplistic. To truly construct a good debate it has to go beyond just morality when it comes to the existence of God. You gotta get science, biology, history or even bible verses in. I'm not saying that Cliffe should get into the science based side of things necceralily but just beyond morality.
I've seen a Cliffe debate a Muslim a while ago. But as soon as the typical corrupted argument came in Cliffe told him to leave because obviously it isn't true but at the same time he doesn't know how to rebuttle that.
They should probably start by recognizing morality has absolutely nothing in determining the validity of the god claim (same goes for “disproving” the god claim as well).
I'm convinced Alex wouldn't have half as many followers as he does if he didn't have a British accent
I have thought the same. He is a young, attractive, sincere guy with a charming British accent. All these traits boost his popularity.
@@Fassnight I think there’s something to this. 😄
I knew the debate wasn't going to go well for the Christians when Phil started speaking and it was revealed he has an accent. Can't beat an accent.
What's with the accent? 😅🤣 how does it play a significant role with the argument given?🤔
@@UnknownsoldieroftheLORDit’s a joke
@@Christisthetruce can you please explain it?
@@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD i guess accents make you sound posh and smarter? Idk bro.
Everyone has an accent. To speak without an accent is impossible.
A Whiff of Glory sounds like a perfume a televangelist would sell…
Do anyone know how cliff works... He doesn't try to convince people he just brings up evidence and let people learn. Cliff does not force anything on anyone just bring his evidence for his belief in God and that's it.
Finally someone who gets it, everyone else tickling their own aholes in these comments
This "debate" was so hard to watch. Cliffe and Stuart are at their best when they are at the street level, and that is ok!
Yup, they draw in college kids who’ve never actually considered religion to be true, so they can actually look to actual formidable apologists like Michael and WLC.
29:38 I feel like their being a bit harsh toward his argument because it some what logical. Everything has a beginning and to say nothing is a beginning is confusing and irrational.
And yes there atheists who do believe that the absence of anything was start of the universe.
For those who do propose such a model, “nothing” is not absolute nothing. One could argue that it’s the first cause of the Kalam, which is really just an assumption introducing an exception to causal induction. Cliffe’s argument is merely incredulity, which is fallacious.
Nicely done. This is a very timely topic. I have heard several weak arguments for God's existence. Some are based more upon appeals to emotion than upon reason and evidence. Others are circular, actually forms of petitio principii. I really think that these debates should be left up to philosophers and theologians rather than lay theists.
If you read scriptures without getting sucked into all the woohoo it tends to create, one will understand the holy spirit and light existed before any god appeared. The construct of this god system is embedded and can be found if one seeks it. The dragon mentioned, is draco constellation found upon the celestial sphere.
@@Bluebaggins Sure, peanut, and my left foot is a unicorn. The scholarly exegesis of the Bible is obviously a complete mystery to you.
@@Bluebaggins , my reply magically disappeared. If you read the Bible OBJECTIVELY, you will discover NO such nonsense as what you posted here. Amazing, how many ignoramuses assumed that they are experts on the Bible simply because they can read an English translation of it.
This is going to be hard to hear ... but I think the Knechtle's arguments were actually good. I think you guys might have a touch of the "can't see the forest for the trees" issue where you are used to far too deep, highfalutin theology. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy your channels and content, but acting like the Knechtle's didn't do anything isn't accurate. They laid good groundwork for their audience to think about how ONLY Jesus and the Christian wordview affords them a foundation for the things we see and use everyday.
Yeah this video rubbed me the wrong way, I entirely agree with your statement. Cliff and Stuart did a great job here (and elsewhere) and it seems really unnecessary and divisive to nitpick them in this manner. Unsubbed because we need more unity less infighting.
It's as if the atheist are on a higher moral ground to judge God and Christianity. Christians often gives atheist ammunition to attack Christianity.
You are right Christianity is much more than believing God exist.
James 2:19 "Thou believe that there is one God; thou does well: the devils also believe and tremble.
If the Christians played a good groundwork, I would say that in this debate, the atheists did a better job to ruin that groundwork, as the Christians did not have really good answers to the objections proposed
I disagree. As @UnknownsoldieroftheLORD said, it isn't about being witty, but knowing how to respond to objections.
If they cannot respond to potential objections, there is no good groundwork being laid.
@@MJtheBaptist IPs goal was to improve on the arguments and help them out, not attack them. ironically you picking a side and unsubscribing in an attempt to harm just reinforces infighting
The problem with most popular apologetics is that it overstates the case. It’s best to do the exact opposite in a debate.
I wish Alex would actually debate good debaters, as much as I find him intelligent and interesting, he seems to shy away from the true debate circle. For example, Andrew Wilson’s folks have reached out to him multiple times and they say he’s ignored them, probably because Andrew is an actually good debater lol.
That's because Alex isn't engaging in 'debates', he's engaging in conversations. It's not some competition where he earns points based on the difficulty level of the opponent, that's just absurd. He engaged with Cliffe because in case you hadn't noticed, Cliffe is everywhere in the online social sphere. He's been appearing on numerous podcasts and for many, MANY Christians, he represents the pinnacle of what an apologist is supposed to be.
For your average, bible-believing Christian, Cliffe is the man. They're not keeping tabs on who is allegedly a skilled debater. Cliffe embodies the gospel message, and to dismiss Alex's video because Cliffe isn't the most skilled apologist is utterly ridiculous. And the hard truth that you all seem to be avoiding, is that if Alex can dismantle Cliffe's arguments so effortlessly - which is more true; that Cliffe is a TERRIBLE apologist, or that just perhaps the content of what Cliffe is trying to defend is indefensible...
But I guess it's easier to see Cliffe humiliated like this and simply claim it's because he didn't tackle a REAL apologist. If all you're interested in is seeing an apologist winning, go watch Andrew vs Matt on repeat.
@@tenmilesfmhonestly - I never heard a good argument from Alex. So, no the theist position is defensible - people just don't keep up. The arguments being discussed on UA-cam are about 200 years behind on the actual debate. Anyone thinking that UA-cam is where it's at needs to read more. Especially American theology is barely playing catch up with European theology. They are just now engaging with things that have been written in German theology about 100 to 200 years ago. It's utterly ridiculous to think that a child like O'Connor is relevant in the larger debate.
@tenmilesfm If you believe that Alex "dismantled Cliffe effortlessly", then you must have watched a different debate.
Cliffe isn't the best man this style of conversation, he's better suited to the street-level apologetics, but that doesn't mean he was ran over by Alex.
Alex's arguments are poor because he can never ground his position in a meaningful way, and Cliffe didn't have time to ground them.
Not everyone that was watching this debate was a PhD Philosopher.
@@MrSeedi76Well now I know you're just lying. You may object to whatever the argument might be, but to say you've never heard a decent argument is to basically say that you believe there is no decent argument against Theism, which just proves your dishonesty. I may not be a believer, but there are a large number of very strong arguments for Christianity. Also, if the foundation for your objection to Alex is calling him a child, there's likely zero point to engaging with you.
I mean, your acerbic wit and razor sharp intellect are clearly leagues ahead of my lowly American ass.
@@zzzzz77771 Um, this video exists because Alex dismantled Cliffe, so IP was forced to do damage control. Try again.
IP please debate a biblical scholar on the resurrection case next!! I really like your debate skills and want to see how the case for the resurrection holds up with people publishing papers in the subject
He should debate Ehrmann. That would be interesting.
There’s a reason this isn’t happening. IP makes a lot of good arguments, but he frequently misrepresents scholarship. I’ve noticed this more recently. If confronted by an actual scholar, a lot of his facts would fall apart.
@@seanpierce9386like in what ways do you think he misrepresents scholarship?
@@DeusVult838 He frequently claims that scholarship has come to an overwhelming conclusion that just happens to support his argument. In reality, that claim is one of many positions or is even a fringe view. He doesn’t do this every time, of course, but I just can’t trust that what he’s saying is representative anymore.
@ Interesting, in specific what fringe positions do you think he holds?
Dear IP, here is how 'Knechtle' is pronounced in it's original German way: Say the 'K' as in the K for 'Kicking' and the N shortly after. The E is then pronounced as a very short and sharp A as in "Any" and the CH is a bit more tricky, as these two letters make a sound and I'd advise you to listen online word like 'echt' or 'Licht' and not words like 'Acht' or 'Docht', as the two latter have the same CH in it, but due to the vowels in front change the sound of the CH completely. The T and L are pronounced as any normal T and L in a word and the last E like the first one. So very easy: Knechtle 🙂 . Now here a little fun factor, the name has the word 'Knecht' (servant and Knecht in particular is a servant for a farmer) and the 'LE' at the end, makes the Knecht small and cute. Hope this helps 🙂
Why is Alex targeting weaker opponents?
Because how would he ever get to debate theology otherwise ? 😂
@@739jep You are saying that on the Inspiring Philosophy channel?
@@matthews5137 yeh , a guy Alex has debated. If Alex ‘only’ targets weaker opponents that would make IP a weaker opponent wouldn’t it? 😂
I've noticed this shift as well. He debated real apologists back in the day. The problem is, he lost.
william lane craig is weak now 😂
At the beginning they were comparing Theism vs Atheism and claiming that atheism is a terrible world view compared to theism.
For more on the imago dei, read Kilner’s “Dignity and Destiny.” He argues forcefully in your direction (though he disagrees with the functional view)
Can someone provide me with introductory philosophy books to understand these conversations more? They don’t necessarily have to be Christian
Come, let us reason - a history of western philosophy - philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview - an introduction to the philosophy of religion. Those are all commonly recommended books :)
@@RiloKenIsHere Thank you 🙏🏻
Aristotle Metaphysics. Aristotle Categories. Emanuel Kant critique of pure reason. Willard V Quinn 2 Dogmas. Emanuel Kant metaphysics. Dave Hume on human reasoning.
Schopenhaur is always a good read
@@kennynoNope is IP saying that animal suffering doesn’t matter in this debate?? At one point he says “i don’t think killing animals is bad”.
It's seems worth noting that most comments are using rhetoric to promote their views, and my points that attempt to express thoughtful arguments are being censored, which seems counterproductive to intellectual discourse, thus making it hard to reason as to why YT is not allowing my comments to remain.
It’s not just you. The problem is that YT uses not just words but phrases and sentence structure, which it’s very bad at recognizing. Plus, they want more false positives than false negatives.
It's actually kind of sad... I'm realizing how many apologetic arguments have been dumbed down into bland, easy marketing statements for Christianity. We've replaced the search for truth with the search for cheap rhetorical victories.
William Lane Craig, David Wood, and Dr. Michael Brown are the ones who got me started in apologetics.
They all questionable theology. Faith only, futurist eschatology.
William lane craig has bad theology tbh
Would it be possible to post these livestreams on your podcast channel? Sometimes I can't be on YT and it sucks having to spend months without getting this kind of content in my week.
Than and Michael should be Olympic gold medalists in gymnastics…mental gymnastics
I do sort of want a possible answer for Phil's initial argument that animals were suffering even before Humans came into the picture and were commanded to rule over the earth, and certainly before the Fall...
Do you have a video already covering this topic?
30:13 Forgive my ignorance, why is this not a valid argument in more simple terms? I tried looking up the initial state mentioned as an alternative hypothesis to God’s eternal existence. Is there scientific evidence that suggests there was some kind of state of existence before the universe began? Is Cliffe committing a God of the gaps type fallacy? we don’t know what existed before the universe began, therefore God? As far as I was aware, the typical response is the multi verse, which is just a theory without evidence.
Cliffe is arguing on the basis of incredulity. There are no models which introduce an absolute nothing, and those that do propose such a model are dying out.
The multiverse hypothesis is easy to misinterpret. It’s simply a result of inflationary theory and says nothing about the beginning of such a phenomenon. In fact, most commonly the inflation is eternal, giving rise to new universes indefinitely. However, as far as I’m aware, this model is far from the “typical response”, since it’s not verified, as you said. It just gets a lot of media coverage.
Where is the live chat replay? Too spicy?
This is an example of the dangers of popular apologetics (same with popular Atheism).
28:30 The BDAG, which is shorthand for the third edition of "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," is considered to be the best lexicon for learning New Testament Greek. But it can be pretty pricy. The second edition, the BAGD, is much more affordable, and still much more up to date than Strong's. I picked one up at Amazon a few years ago for $12 plus delivery (for the third edition, you're looking at $160+).
Another good option is Danker's Concise Lexicon. It's not as extensive as the BDAG, But it's a solid choice for a reasonable price.
Has Alex ever talked to someone like Feser or Fr. Gregory Pine? Majesty of Reason has debated pine I know but I am not sure how much Alex has engaged with Thomists
HE DID. He had a hard time comprehending feser's and He talked with Gregory about divine hideness.
@ I am not shocked that he struggled with Feser. Not because Alex is unintelligent, but because atheists do not understand St. Thomas lmao
@@WarMetalChud He has spoken to both, I believe.
@@WarMetalChudWhat _exactly_ is it that I, an atheist, don't understand about Thomas Aquinas?
I strongly believe Cliffe and his Son brought a good arguments despite their opponents refusing to engage on them. As usual atheists like Alex are good at circling around.
What exactly did Alex "circle around"?
Than you are probably not an intelligent person
Ironic considering that cliffe and son were completely unresponsive to the issues raised by Alex and Phil.
I love your videos
Is it accurate to say they are using arguments as premises?
I always debate from my experiences with God in harmony with the good books called Bible. Supernatural healings mentally and physically after prayer from my first person experience and so so much more. A walk with Christ comes with the riches of the Kingdom
I think that is purely subjective. When trying to argue for something objectively true, people may just ignore that because it is your personal experience.
@@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD true. But nothing really is objective as far as we can observe it. Even the outcome of 1 x 1 seems to be debatable.
But beside that. I’m curious to learn what’s considered a solid argument for God
@@DutchChristian I would say that the argument for objective abstract realities would be good (i.e. there is a realm beyond naturalism, there are objective truths beyond the physical, such as the existence of irrational numbers in nature and imaginary numbers explaining reality in a way that are not concidental. This channel has a few good ones, building on the argument of an ultimate Moral Good requiring a Mind that upholds and observes all in existence, and other ones.
Gavin Ortlund's UA-cam video on his channel on how Math suggests the existence of God is an interesting one, if you have roughly an hour to listen or watch.
@DutchChristian what do exactly you mean with "nothing is objective as far as we can observe it"? How does it follow, that if something is debatable, then it is subjective?
@ you are right, it’s subjective, non repeatable and unsure if it’s a true story. Many times its dismissed as coincidental or spontaneous remission when it comes to extraordinary healing after prayer. It makes me sad that all the stuff I’ve seen and been through don’t impact others but e me alone. It makes me sad for God Who deserves awe and recognition.
I’ve looked into Gavin Ortlund's videos. But there I couldn’t find the argument you revered to, for a lack of my ability to recognize it. Sorry. I would appreciate a title or link if your willing to do me this favor.
Reading your argument made curious for sure. Some things came to mind while reading your response like the holographic universe and the problem of math matching Qphisics. AThe abstracts seem problematic to me, cuz for example; many infinity’s can be put into infinity as with numbers. You can think of it as an infinite amount of numbers, but also an infinite amount of numbers between each number. Or infinity multiplied or divided, makes no sense to my understanding. In that sense all abstracts could be merely mental ideas.
I would like to learn how the abstract makes sense as an argument for God. So please, I like to find out.
Why do "atheists" like Ehrman or O'Connor find it highly unlikely that the book of Mark shows Jesus divinity while Christians do? Why isn't there a consensus on this?
For me, to be a believer of the gospel, we need to talk from the sovereignty of God and His foreknowledge with prophetic fulfillment, such as the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah et al. And I’ve yet to see anyone try to do!
To try and argue using philosophy of man is fruitless. If the atheist cannot accept the obvious fulfillment of prophecy they are not going to accept any other arguments no matter how hard you discuss with them logically. Even if you are as good as CS Lewis, whom most philosophically strong atheists like O’Connor have studied for themselves cannot sway them, it’s only the prophetic word of God and the Spirit can reach them. If they reject that, then the balls in their court, walk away and find another audience! I think that Romans chapter 1:18-22 sums it up best; thinking themselves wise they became fools!
Tell me an obvious fulfillment of an OT prophecy.
And in light of this "obviousness", explain to a skeptic the prophecy utilized in Matthew 2:23, for example.
@@stefan-rarescrisan5116: Well I’m sure you studied the problem of Matthew 2:23 out.
In all honesty, I don’t have an answer for you at this time.
That being said, the prophecy of Daniel 9:20-27 clearly gives a timeline that foretold the coming of Jesus, his ministry and death hundreds of years before it occurred!
The book of Isaiah predicted by NAME Cyrus the Great and how he would overthrow Babylon and restore Jerusalem hundreds of years before it happened (Isaiah 44:23-45:8)!
@@kensmith8152 What’s the problem with Matthew 2:23? Curious to know.
@: obviously the author quotes a Old Testament prophecy that is obscure or not known
@@kensmith8152 Most thinks Matthew could be making a general statement referring back to passages like Psalms 22:6-7. This would make more sense in the 1st century when someone from Nazareth would be despised.
The same with Matthew 2:15 "Out of Egypt have I called my son." Israel starts out as an individual to a nation and now back to an individual.
I remember always seeing on the Modern-Day Debates channel Cliffe and Stuart getting demolished by the big atheists, long before I started seeing them trending on social media.
Magnetic Aura book by Takeshi Mizuki ain’t for everyone, it’s for people who actually want to get ahead.
Let me know if you covered this in here, but why don't Christians defend the problem of evil by appealing to the fact that without evil/suffering we're unable to even perceive good/evil. This seems to be the idea behind the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I was curious when IP didn't use this when debating Alex.
I'd assume the arguments against it are similar to those for other issues. "We know cause evolution has developed in a certain way" or "it's all subjective" or for a lot of the pop atheists that don't think through their ideology things are just good or bad because they are just good or bad
This argument won't work because the lack of perception of it does not indicate non-existence. Back in the days, we did not perceive air as a thing but it did exist and was doing its thing. A better argument is arguing from necessity of it in God's plans, after all, the problem of evil is only targeting a specific kind of God, and is essentially criticizing that God's plans being worse than what they can think of
@@shikyokira3065 I agree with you, but the atheist argument is that a hypothetical world where evil and suffering don't exist is better. So I guess maybe it exists in the mind of God, but we don't have access to it, so we can't perceive it.
@@jaredbeiswenger3766Oh this is where you can find common ground with atheists if they believe such world is better, because we call this world heaven. And the reason it has no evil and suffering is because we will constantly be in the presence of God in heaven. If you want something more scientific, it would be that we will be living under a different law of the universe in heaven
So the only contention we have here is whether God's plans are flawed or not. From here, it is much easier to argue because we can argue from a philosophical, or even literature pov. The problem of evil doesn't just exist in our world but also in fictional worlds. But why don't atheists use the problem of evil as a premise that the story is bad instead still calls the story good in their own terms? In this way, you put the ball in their park, and they have to justify it for you
It is always better to use the reasoning of others than to reason it yourself, because in terms of resonance, they are more likely to resonate with their own reasoning to something than your own reasoning
I agree with this perspective whole heartedly
I will admit I am a terrible debater because I'm slow on my feet, but man I also hate going first. Narrow down the question and make sure you have something really tight to rebut or counter...
Some guy hyped up Kilff on social media by creating a fake poster advertising a debate between him and Frederich Nietzsche. It would be like watching the 1998 Minnesota Vikings play the 2019 LSU Tigers
Nice intro btw 😂
Around an hour and 4 minutes in, Mike says he doesn’t care about killing animals?? Is this for the sake of pointing out that it wasn’t established that matters in the first place? But even so, it SHOULD matter if it doesn’t. I’m confused
Our brain's purpose is to solve problems and suffering. Without challenges, 👉success, skill development, even the brain's role lose their meaning. - JPelo
@@jpelo Are you referring to an objective purpose, which would imply God's existence, or only an observation of how the brain functions and deriving a subjective purpose from it, which indirectly acknowledges an objective purpose because it describes the design of the mind being for the function of reasoning and solving problems, pointing to God's existence?
I agree, O'Connor only had his B game but he still trounced team Jesus in this round
Teachable moment.
30:00 When cliff says "I believe in god because I believe non existence cannot produce existence" Actually can work because decay proves time isn't constant, Therefore we have a start/beginning of time. And time is a fundamental in the universe.
IP don't you understand pre-sup apologetics?
It does not matter if an atheist follows a different model of our beginning or universe
Can you put Cliff's argument in the form of a syllogism?
How did you determine our universe had a beginning? Please present the data (or at the very least cite the source of such data) that you analyzed and describe the methodologies you employed to reach such a conclusion.
@@TheoSkeptomai-k7pAh, you again, my friend! Haven’t seen you in Ip comment sections in a while.
@RabidLeech1 My other account wouldn't let me post ANY comments. So, I started a new account. No problems thus far.
Propositional apologetics is a misnomer, it’s actually presuppositional preaching. An apology is, by very definition is to make an argument defining what you believe. To be the question is not to make an argument, it’s simply to assume the conclusion. Which is exactly what the presuppositional view does.
You see this clearly in their opening. They don’t make arguments, The simply assert the truth of what would be the conclusions of arguments. They articulate not a single premise.
One argument I have that I've been working on (I don't know if it's any good btw) is what if the Christian God is false but there is still a God that we don't know exists.
I think two problems that I call the "Problem of Delay" and the "Problem of Deception" would be effective in overturning this hypothesis, because if there is indeed a supreme God other than the Christian God, then why has he not revealed himself much earlier so that we would consider his existence valid? And why did he actively allow the existence of several other religions around the world, most notably Christianity, that would make it virtually impossible to conceive of any other God than the ones we already know? Since he has not revealed himself to us, and has still allowed the existence of false religions, then knowing this mysterious God would be impossible, which could even raise some doubts about the morality of this deity, and if in fact the religious experiences in favor of Christianity were true, but Christianity was not, then this mysterious god would be objectively evil since he would actively be deceiving people with illusions or manifestations of false religions for reasons we can't even understand.
This leads me to the conclusion that, if there is a true God, he MUST be one of those we already know, otherwise this god simply does not exist or he may be a voluntarist god, opening up the possibility of him being evil.
Have you heard of the "Divine Prophet" argument/theory? It is one that Joshua R. Sijuwade has proposed in an article called, "The Necessity of an Incarnate Prophet", and it might fit into the type of argument that you're trying to build. You can download it from the philarchive website and go through it yourself to see his line of reasoning; it sounds somewhat similar to what you're trying to say.
My counter would be he could just be uninterested in humanity.
@ElijahKinsman-x3r A deistic God, right? That's a great answer, but how could you answer the part about religious experiences in other religions? Because if all other religions are false, but these experiences are still true, wouldn't that imply that this god is deceiving people?
@ you could sum it up to just feelings he feelings.
@wraves693 There are people who describe life changing experiences ( akin to religious ones) from taking certain drugs that changes their lives forever. It could just be that certain actions/practices in certai. environments allow a human to tap into a deeper part of the human psyche. Or maybe they are tapped into something more immaterial.
What are a few good Christian philosophy books?
A book for beginners may be "Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview Dr William Lane Craig" as IP says, I haven't read it personally, but different people I know recommended it
Knowledge and Christian Belief - Alvin Plantinga
Is there a God? - Richard Swinburn
Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God - Jerry L. Walls and Trent Dougherty
The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited - Andrew Loke
Five Proofs of the Existence of God - Ed Feser
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview - William Lane Craig
@valkyrieloki1991 thank you
Try the works of Alvin Plantinga.
If WLC had a British accent he'd be unstoppable.
For the philosophers and concerned with such things... (Colossians 2:8)
That is not an argument against philosophy as a whole. The Bible itself uses philosophy. Theology is a philosophy, as is how someone approaches life and how someone thinks.
Paul in Colossians 2 is discussing Stoicism and the budding of what is now known as gnosticism, which caused people's hearts to be hardened against the gospel and caused them to call the crucifixion "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1).
@@samueljennings4809 It's the same Paul uses some natural theology but never put natural theology above God's special revelation, the Jewish scriptures.
This is the problem theist have given atheist ammo when they started to argue natural theology and philosophy over the scriptures just so they appear smart to the lost men of the world. It's like William Craig said something about not quoting John because the intellectuals don't see it as historical as other gospels. The gospel of John have won many to the Lord by itself. Jesus when rebuking the devil used scriptures "It is written".
Bots keep talking about a book. Arua citengam. Report them for spam and do not engage.
Could Cliff have done better? Sure.
My question would be, when is there a debate where someone could have done no better than they did?
Not everyone that watched the debate were PhDs in Philosophy!
These "does the Christian God exist" debates are reduntant, anyway.
If you are going to make arguments against the actions of YHWH then you have to first assume His existence, if you assume His existence, then you have to assume everything that comes with that, like His omniscience for example.
We arent omniscient, therefore we have nonwhere near the information required to make an informed judgement on His actions. After all, "my thoghts are higher than your thoughts"
So debating YHWYs actions have to assume His existence and thats too problematic.
You don’t need to assume his existence.
The debate was about the god of the bible - so they were attempting to show contradictions relating to the nature of god within that text. Contradictions make it less likely that the god as described by the bible exists - because they’re logically impossible.
Hey, Michael! As someone who believes in theistic evolution, do you think God's Not Dead, despite being an awful movie, did a bad job at defending theidtic evolution?
How do you define 'theistic evolution'?
@TheoSkeptomai-k7p I'm not the best person to ask this because there may be a more complex answer to that but from what I understand, Theistic Evolution is really about God using the evolution process in creating the world.
@@jacindaellison3363 How did you determine this 'God' created this world (universe)?
I too am prohibited from removing facial hair.
1:24 Michael cussing up in here
I don't know why people keep mentioning David Wood. If it's not Islam, don't mention him
Is apologism declining now? Are Atheist having a resurgence?
I agree cliff and his son did not perform well but by far the worst person in the debate was Phil. Everything he said was just so blatantly false it was laughable frustrating.
For example ?
@@739jep well the opening statement for starters. IP and Than did a good job showing everything wrong there. That’s just the beginning, I don’t remember it all and I recommend you look up my comments on modern day debates channel to see specifics but he’s wrong about Jesus being a copy of so called dieing and rising Gods, Christian’s views on animals, what sentience is classically known as, thinking plants don’t have similar neurological and communicational makeups of animals, not understanding the science of fine tuning, misquoting and getting biblical passages completely wrong, I.e. the firmament, he even refuted himself on scholarly authority in the first back and forth with cliffs son, and it just goes on and on every time he talks. Cliff and his son were overly passionate and not philosophical but Phil was just flat wrong on everything.
@@kennethanderson8770 thanks for a thought out response , I’ll try to find your comments 👍
I like the part where he said at least have good answers for all the contradictions, (recognizing that there are tons of contradictions)
Rather than saying good arguments for perceived contradictions lol
I usually don't watch debates but I did watch that one that you guys are going over and it was a bloodbath . And I didn't even think Alex O'Connor's side did very well, it's like they didn't even try.
The other guys just seemed to constantly be agitated and high strung
it's different if they have an old earth view , but young earth creationist views don't hold up to any scrutiny
so far I'm about 50 mins in and no I don't believe Christians win on the moral argument.
If they believe God was OK with generational punishment and collective punishment, and then they also believe God changed the rules and then said no there's not collective punishment there's not generational punishment
That's a major issue.
An atheist such as myself can easily say something like where do you get your morality from, they will say God, I will say something like do you believe in reparations? do you believe some people whose ancestors were treated badly (slavery ) should be put first in line because of their color etc? do you believe we should punish someone's grandson for the grandfather sins? and they will say of course not that would be evil.. (granted they won't say that it's evil they'll just throw out some word salad) or try to say that the text doesn't say or mean what it says and meant
tada..
they can say well God doesn't do that anymore but that doesn't take away the fact that God did .
And if they can't give a reasonable argument to support an instance where generational punishment and collective punishment can be just, by their own morality, they will always lose.
Because we all know there's no argument to make to suggest some grandchild should be punished for what their grandpa did
As a Old Earth Creationist : i agree with you.
@ but even as an old earth creationist I still don't see how you get over the Old Testament God being evil.
If you believe he caused generational punishment and did collective punishment, and all the other atrocities to children and women
then also believe he changed to where he didn't do collective punishment or generational punishment anymore.. then there are some major issues there.
If your morality comes from God, then name one possible instance where you would find it acceptable for your grandson to be punished for what you did .. if you find even the thought of that has being immoral then you don't share the morality of God or the morality he had at least at one point
I would beg to differ. There are plenty of intelligent people that back young earth creation theory.
@ I keep responding to people and it shows up for about five minutes and then it gets deleted
But if you're able to read this I'm not saying intelligent people don't back young earth creationism I'm saying their arguments fall flat every one of them
Cliffe and Stuart aren’t debaters.
And Debaters especially "Atheists" aren't saved.
@Uteria_888 and how do you know that “debaters” aren’t saved? How do you define a debater? Does that include fellow Christians? 🤨
@@Uteria_888So my whole speech and debate team is going to hell?
Is Alex O Connor in his vampire phase?
The book Delighting in the Trinity by Michael Reeves was very helpful on why God made creation the way He did because of His triune nature. His eternal nature logically follows because He is *The* Father, *The* Son, and *The Spirit*. The Father eternally loving and leading His Son, the Son reciprocating this love to the Father in and through the Spirit and the Spirit marking the Son as whom the Father loves. Because of this eternally loving nature, God logically created in order that His love could be known and shared, and His glory displayed. Than's comments of reasons for why God would create the universe the way He did reminded me of this.
Philosophers think you need to be a philosopher to debate but you don't. What you need to do is have a grasp of the actual issue. The issue is that atheists are wicked sinners and the job of the preacher is to tell them and get them to see it. The problem of evil is a non problem. Creation is proof of God's existence. Just stand on that.
After reading this comment, you could probably use a philosophy class or at least critical thinking...
@crimsonking5961 lol I actually know a fair bit but "winning a debate" isn't the point in my opinion. In fact as time goes on debates seem less and less relevant to me.
@@Phill0old Personally I prefer conversations than debates. But if the debate is about something existing then winning that debate is pretty big.
Before I worry about how dangerous a griffin bite is, it would be good to know griffins exist.
@crimsonking5961 Griffins are the worst, not only do they bite but they make a terrible mess with all that flapping. On a serious note; God is and the proof is that something exists at all.
What _exactly_ are you asserting that this 'God' created?
Ip with all due respect I think that you guys are just being too “smartass” with Cliff. He’s just expressing his belief in his own way. I don’t see any problem with his main way. It’s agreeable and I still agree with what you say too. But I just think you guys are trying too hard to find flaws in his way of words. Maybe because you’re scared of how Alex might respond.
i think they're not. I understand your point tho, they sometimes seem very harsh on him. I love cliffe, great guy, doing what's right. But he objectively just did not perform good in this debate, that's it
@@7urakWhat is Cliffe doing that is "right"?
i promise you IP is not remotely scared of debating Alex.
Cliff is a big boy he can handle the criticism.
IP is absolutely correct, you don't take on a topic like "prove the Christian God exists" in a debate. its a monstrous topic that requires time and just allows the atheist to throw out a million circle logic's questions until they find one you are bound to not know the direct answer too, you see that in comment sections all the time. you answer one and the atheist will just fire off another and another add nauseum.
@@TheoSkeptomai-k7p spreading the Gospel
@ I know. I like IP too but I feel like he’s just being a “smartass” with his fellow Christian here. I’m just saying like when cliff say something like “I believe in God because something can’t come from nothing” something along that line. Why IP has something to say about that? That’s agreeable as a Christian unless you care too much about what the atheist might say back. Who cares if there are atheist who believe in something. I think they’re just borrowing points from theists. Cause as far as I’m concern, atheists are the one that don’t believe in any deity and anything except what’s already there aka the universe.
What did cliff do bad?
ikr? i'm.. kinda.. confused
Regarding debating for a god rather than the Christian God, as an audience member that always feels like a massive cop-out on the theist’s side. Everyone knows the theist has a specific god in mind because nobody cares about an abstract first cause with no specific desires or demands of people.
I’d almost rather the atheist in such cases say, “Ok, that exists, but I’m going to call it Blarg to make it clear it’s nonsense until you tell me what Blarg wants and how you know. I won’t call it a god, let alone God until you connect it to and demonstrate your mythology.”
If the atheist wants to concede that God exists, they aren't atheists anymore. If God exists, that's important to know. It's good to know in its own right, and it's a necessary condition of coming to know God fully.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Yes, and after acknowledging that God exists, it would start to already inherently imply the only specific types of gods could exist. For example, a Necessary Being would have moral perfection, which would lead to the condemnation or judgment of all of us who fall short of the standard, but this necessary being must also be loving because a standard of perfection and creating beings to fulfill the standard of perfection would imply that humans are inherently valuable, and this creates a necessary dichotomy that there would indeed inherently be some type of sacrifice for our sins in order to solve this dichotomy, and Christianity is the only religion that truly solves this dilemma through Jesus Christ.
This makes Christianity one of the few if not the only candidate out of all of the world's religions that could possibly be true.
@@Jimmy-iy9plStill an atheist because they're acknowledging the existence of Blarg, not a god.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl yeah but were meant to be making Christian’s not heretics we shouldn’t be debating just to try and win there’s more at stake
One step at a time! First you must demonstrate the plausibility of God existing. Only then can you show why it MUST be a specific God.
Yeah, I kind of knew he wasn’t great at debating once he debated Matt Dillhunty and when that one Muslim dude threw objections at him. I don’t get the hype behind him.
Wait I don't understand what you mean when you said, "other moral & ethical claims are not just footnotes to the sermon on the mount" if you mean like aristotles nicomachean ethics that is great, I think cliff meant footnote as in comparison to the ethics that Jesus taught anyone else in history, & I agree with your guest here "Than", I do think cliff tried to wax poetic. But not that virtue ethicists are not good at times great, but comparable to Jesus I do agree the ancient Greeks have nothing on Jesus.
1:02:38
These are my two cents take ‘em or leave them. In the bible there are different spiritual gifts given. Cliffe has done great work for Christ but debating is not his strongest suite. William lane craig is excellent at debates but maybe in another area he’s not as great. There’s nothing wrong with him not being great at debating. God has given us a variety of spiritual gifts but sometimes we should focus on what God has given us the ability to do, then to branch out and cause more harm than good. God bless.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
You'll get it with the nous. Not the rational mind
I watch these but i do struggle to follow
If you want to see the greatest example on how to debate an atheist it’s Dr Greg Bahnsen vs Dr Stein.
An early example of TAG word vomit
@ that’s deeply inaccurate
@@kennynoNope deeply accurate given TAG making unjustified assumptions, can't defend its own claims and more often than not is fallacious when formed as a syllogism. Worse yet the argument can be mirrored to any other position with equal validity. Nor does TAG actually refute many of the positions it claims it does
@ have you called into jay dyer stream and debated him on tag. If it’s so easily refuted ?
@@kennynoNope Lol you seem to think anyone takes Jay Dyer takes seriously. Why waste time on someone who a) misrepresents the meaning of terms/concepts b) runs away from actually presenting an argument and c) exclusively says nothing of value. When Jay Dyer writes a philosophy paper and gets it published so actual philosophers engage with it then ill take it seriously. Until then its in the category of a either a non argument or a very bad argument. Of course you are welcome to present your version of TAG
I also don't think the moral argument works
It is pronounced Connect-Lee.
Wait IP said Genesis 1 has been mistranslated ? This is good (metaphorical) ammo for mormons, muslims, atheists to use this clip against those of us who take seriously theological claims from you IP, oh and Billy Carson fans love this confirmation bias that "the bible has been mistranslated) especially the 1st page being Genesis 1. Personally the asserted calvinistic presuppositions of cliff is worrisome for a listener who is looking for excuses to reject the God of the bible when you say, "all things are done by the holy council of the will of God" (including all evil) this is not a great description of the true God to get people to accept the gospel in the theistic predestination kind of presuppositional apologetics.
Do apologists use these(the things below) as "proofs for existence of God?" If not why not?
1.) Witchcraft
2.) Spiritism
3.) Amulets
4.) Quote in quote demonic possession s
5.) Hauntings if they are real
6.) Spiritual realm(if that is real)
7.) Paranormal research
8.) Black magic/white magic/whatever
9.) Study supernatural? (If supernatural is true)
10.) Occult
11.) Hidden knowledge
Are you a Christian if you don't believe this things?
Christians who doubt the existence of God probably didn't had "supernatural experience",
true or not?
Also this might be correct or not but;
I was a Hindu since birth
Because of Witchcraft and spirituality I am a believer of Christ today
That's why these superficial ear pleaseaning talks doesn't affect my faith
Yes, they do use that. BUT, only for the existence of some God existing or that there's more to reality than the physical/natural, rather than evidence for a specific God. In other words, this argument is for natural vs supernatural or atheism vs theism debate than for atheist vs Christianity/other religion. But even then, they rarely ever use magic, witchcraft, occultism, etc. as evidence due to how rare and how often people can edit these things. They rather use other examples of nonmaterial/nonphysical things, like the existence of free will, mind, laws of logic, etc.
for your second question, you're still a Christian even if you don't believe in the 11 points you wrote down, but you at least have to believe in some level of a nonmaterial reality, like free will. I mean, the existence of God in itself is supernatural so you have to have some level of belief in that, even if it's not as big as magic.
Your 3rd question is... umm... In a broad sense, everyone doubts the existence of God on some level. No one 100% doubts or 100% believes. I could go into detail, but I guess that's not what you're really asking (and I'm not into making this long answer longer). If you're asking, "people who don't believe in God probably never had supernatural experience", then yes, it's highly likely, but then again, most people who believe in God never had such experience either. And then there are some people who could have a supernatural experience, but they would either think they are imagining things or even ended up going to demonic/occult worship rather than God. So, it depends on the individual, really.
1)no, Christian apologists will not use the things u mentioned before because they simply dont have a good argument structure and doesnt point to the existence for the "proof" of the existence of God. Such as the black magic case u pointed out because black magic's purpose is not pointing the case of God's ENTIRE existence as a whole, black magic is just part of the evil in the world ( meaning that this just shows the other side of the spiritual realm) and WE SOULD NOT ENGAGE WITH AT ALL!!!! But my case could be that these are the things that led u to the Christian/Biblical God since most of these things are associated with evil(besides supernatural and hidden knowledge since they are in a neutral ground). Therefore making the reason why this points out to you( @alphaecho3875)doesnt make use of the existence of God( not as a whole and intellectually).
2) do you mean "Are you still a christian if u dont believe these things?" if so then yes because the definiton of 'Christian' is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and identifies with the beliefs and practices of Christianity and therefore doesnt degrade the idea of being a Christian if u dont believe in these things.
and 3) While thats like saying " athiests doubt and dont believe in the existence of God is because they only wanna sin" but thats not the case cuz this is a generalization of a people who had their own experience, so its hard to say cuz any person who doubts the existence of God has their personal reasons and therefore doesnt make make every Christian leaves Christianity cuz of not having a supernatural experience. ye thats my two cents
@@satoshiryusei3995 yo brooo i like ur response however i do i have some concerns of ur answers
for 1) we have our difference in this case but i do see some flaws but i dont wanna discuss it since we have our differences ( but lemme know if u wanna discuss this)
2and 3)yes it true, youre still christian if u dont believe these things but to say " EVERYONE" doubts the existence of God is just generalization and that there people who 100% believes or doubts the existence of God such as my self who 100% believes for the existence but to say everyone has "some level" of doubt of the existnece of God is generalizing people's idea of God existing. And to say people who has had a supernatural expeience who just decided to end up worshiping evil or join occults is a slippery slope fallacy, just because one had a supernatural expierence with something beyond the natural world does not mean they will end up on the side of evil, therefore making your response good on a certain degree but not good also
@lemoonah6160 I see. I guess I should clarify a bit.
For no 1, If you read the question, he asks if APOLOGISTS uses them as evidence/proof for the existence of God, not you, I, or even the general Christians. And what I'm saying is that to my knowledge, apologists rarely ever use them for evidence for God's existence and instead uses other things like free will and such. I mean, I rarely ever hear an apologists talk about paranormal activity and then connect that with God's existence. Keyword, rare, as in there are apologists who use these, but it's not a common argument. Again, he ask if apologists, not us.
As for no 3, I think we defined belief and doubt differently, so I should explain the definition I'm using. I actually have 2 definitions, from the intelligence aspect and the moral aspect. For the intelligence aspect, when I said 100% believe/doubt, I'm defining it in terms of certainty. As in, to say someone 100% certain/believe, is to say that there are absolutely 0 margin for error and that there is no other possible answer. This is why I say that everyone doubts on certain levels, because there is always a room for error within your knowledge, even if that margin of error is
The problem of evil and suffering has never been a very convincing one to me although I can see why it has sway with many.
To the problem of animal suffering I would offer the following:
First, as an internal critique, we can assume for argument that God created man, man sinned etc.
Now what happens when we sin? More specifically what are the consequences should I, for the sake of argument, end someone's life violating the 5th commandment?
Is this something that affects only me? It is clear the consequences of one's own sin extend beyond ones self.
Further in Genesis we see that sin extends beyond Adam and Eve altering the state and relationship of the earth and its creatures.
I just don't believe this is a separate problem that needs to be sorted out uniquely.
The problem of evil does not require a theist’s counter-response because it is a speculative argument lacking sufficient evidence or proof. The skeptic cannot prove the Euthyphro dilemma or that the only options are that God is either not powerful enough or not loving. It remains possible that God has sufficient reasons for allowing evil, and the skeptic cannot demonstrate otherwise. Requiring a theist to respond shifts the burden of proof when it rests on the skeptic, who would need absolute knowledge to move this argument beyond speculation-a standard they cannot meet.
@@definitelynotsarcasm The problem of evil does not require a theist’s counter-response because it is a speculative argument lacking sufficient evidence or proof. The skeptic cannot prove the Euthyphro dilemma or that the only options are that God is either not powerful enough or not loving. It remains possible that God has sufficient reasons for allowing evil, and the skeptic cannot demonstrate otherwise. Requiring a theist to respond shifts the burden of proof when it rests on the skeptic, who would need absolute knowledge to move this argument beyond speculation-a standard they cannot meet.
God is a legal God. He created everything that was right. Satan created the only thing left, evil. God created humans (Adam), in the many thousands, as pure spiritual beings and not flesh. The devil took Adams rib for DNA and made the hybrd Eve (Ishshah).
Adam was the ruler of earth but once the hybrid Eve bowed the knee to the devil, so did Adam, thus handing over authority to the devil and Satan then became the new legal ruler of the earth (2 Corinthians 4: 4, John 18: 36). Satan put humans into bodies of flesh, poured death for he is the creator of death (Hebrews 2: 14) onto the planet and caused all evil (there is no evil in God - 1 John 1: 5, Psalm 107, Romans 12: 2). Prior to this all life didn't kill one another, even humans ate plants as food (Genesis 1), but evil being the devils creation made suffering his way of things.
All life after death will either go to Heaven or Hell; Hell is a place of purification, rather than torture, were the furnace analogy is used to purify metals - the fire and brimstone were the smoke rises for eternity. The word eternity doesn't mean that, it means temporary, the same exact word was used for Jonah in the belly for 3 days, not eternal, and Jesus paid in full 3 days in Hell, not eternal. After death the devil no longer has any authority over you, so all things once purified go to Heaven, all things rightfully return unto the Lord.
===Devil uses name of God
In many passages, the majority of the Old Testament, the devil and God have been unrightfully given the same name. When we see passages of God doing evil, when we know 100% fact there is no evil in God (1 John 1: 5), then we must deduce it is not God but the devil. Here are some examples below:
All these verses below are are the devil given the name of God. These are not God, but the devil WITH the name of God.
I'll explain even easier; the devil used the name of God to commit atrocities and to be seen as and worshipped as God.
Ezekiel 14: 9 - The devil, with the nameof God, openly admits to being a lying deciever.
has no mercy and no love (Hosea 9: 15-16)
Kills people, children, even animals (1 Samuel 15: 2-3)
Sends lying spirits (1 Kings 22: 23)
-Remember, the Thief Satan comes to kill, steals and destroy (John 10: 10) not God yet that's all we see in the OT.
-Jesus said he came to destroy the one who had the power of death (Hebrews 2: 14) The devil has the power of death, not God.
These are in complete oppositionto who Jesus revealed the Father to be.
===The devil gave the laws at Mt Sinai
The devil gave the laws at Mt Sinai; they are a ministry of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3: 7 - 9), when "God" (the devil) came down to Mt Sinai it matched the perfect description as LEVIATHAN (Isaiah 27: 1-5) who is known as the DEVIL (Revelation 12: 9).
Job 41: 1-34 (18-22)
*Leviathan* (Serpent/ Satan) smokes goes out of his nostrils, his breath kindles coals, a flame goes out of his mouth. His sneezings flash forth light, out of his mouth go burning lights, sparks of fire shoot out. He beholds every high thing; He is king over all the children of pride.
Psalms 18: 6-15
I called out to the LORD, and cried out to my God; he heard my voice. He was angry, smoke went up from his nostrils, devouring fire from his mouth; coals were kindled by it. came down with darkness under his feet, he made darkness his secret place, his canopy was dark waters and thick clouds.
Exodus 19: 18-19 (when the law was given, same as Leviathan)
Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln. Now when all the people saw the thunder and flashes of lightning, and the mountain smoking, people were afraid and trembled. Moses near to the thick darkness where God was.
I hope you can see this and it'll explain evil, and the bible + any supposed contradiction, a little better.
Good. So go you to the universities. Will we see you there ?
Dude, IP does a ton of online apologetics and has debated multiple popular speakers.
Apologetics ≠ Preachers
Im sorry, but I definitely read that in Yoda's voice 😂
The question that the Christian side should ask the atheist is what makes you think that God doesn’t exist?
Many Christians forget to ask questions asking questions will trap your opponent but if you are the only one answering questions that shows that your opponent are on the right path
The problem is burden of proof. The status quo is that he does not exist until proven to exist.
@@kakashisensei5343 This is false. Christians are allowing atheist to act as judge of Christianity building up their pride thinking they don't have to prove their position. Atheist are hypocrites as atheism is not based on evidence yet they asked for evidence for everyone else's world view.
I think Christians waste a lot of time trying to prove God existence when the Bible doesn't waste time arguing it.
I'm an atheist skeptic, very skeptical of atheist's skepticism.
@kakashisensei5343 i would say "we don't know if he exists until proved he exists" or "... until disproved he exists" ... that way the burden of proof would not be shifted to the affirmative, but the negative would also have to deal with it, in fact, there are some arguments given for the non existence of God, instead of just "there is no proof for God so he doesn't exist" ... in other words, we start from an agnostic viewpoint and the argument for both sides are explored
@@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD I don't agree agnostic is the default position either. I've never been an atheist nor an agnostic. No one had to prove to me God exist no more than the universe exist. When dealing with God we are dealing with the most fundamentals of reality.
@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD you have to remember the atheist objections . If you come up with the boggie monster then you prove he exists . I'm a Christian btw just giving a fair breakdown
’Ey Patrick tell me more about dis animal soul ting!
This was a hard debate to watch
Cliff is great Preacher or in conversation with the people but he's not build for debate.
14:21
If you believe animals have souls then you might have to subscribe to panpsychism in order to remain consistent. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Do dogs have souls, how about cats? If so, lizards, how about fish? Plants? Do plants have souls? How about cells or other microorganisms? Do they give an account to god?
Alex has become so disappointingly basic in his atheism.
1:28Ba beginning less universe has been ruled out by cosmologists. Refresh your google search.
?
1:39:41
Why claim Christ if you are going to believe the lie of macro evolution? Read Theistic Evolution edited by Stephen Meyer for a complete rebuttal. Evolution does not work on multiple levels.
That theology isnt a salvation issue. The thief on the cross barely knew anything but knew Jesus was God and he got saved
@ezekielarraez7045 you are probably right but I think it becomes important to Truth, the Bible, and leading people to Christ. If you cannot trust Genesis, Job, or Jesus' own words, then why trust anything the Bible says about anything?
He is right about listening to his wife
🔥🔥