There are a lot of false assumptions behind this trick. The first assumption is that committee decided on the council of Christ. This is obviously not true because the scriptures themselves actually show Jesus claiming to be a deity and not denying this when the Pharisees tried to Stone him for blasphemy. So the document itself is already claiming Jesus's Divinity before the council of nicea came to a consensus of what the text was saying. So that's the first argument proves that the council of nicea discovered the claims of divinity made by Jesus not that they came to determine his divinity. The other assumption is when the people asked if he had any evidence to prove that he was the Messiah, Michael says no, but this is clearly in contradiction to what the scripture say. When Jesus clearly performed the miracles in front of the people that was evidence to them that he was the Messiah and he was claiming the same titles that are only given to God himself. The second assumption is in the following two questions where the people ask the if he can promise that the next two things will not happen. On what grounds does that make the view that Christianity is false simply because people abuse it? That would be like me saying that atheism is false because of the mass murders committed by Pol pot, Mao Ze Tung, and Stalin prove that atheism false. The immediate return of the atheist is that they didn't kill in the name of atheism. So what? You're still saying that because of the actions of people necessitates that the truth of that religion should be put to question. If anything it only proves that the claims of that religion are true because people are acting in accordance with their sinful and will still try to distort the message for their own purposes regardless. So the assumptions that Michael is using in his card trick are based usually on ignorance and subjective bias.
The false assumption is that you took this way too literally. Honestly. Mistaking a card trick for a history lesson! It's a quick and dirty analysis of why Christianity is so hecked up. Why people accept the claims of religion based on warm feelings and wanting to be part of a special group. Whether it's valid or not. All the horrible things that people let religious leaders get away with, because he says the right things to make it sound like he's doing God's will. Even if he's contradicting the bible. People cherry picking the parts of God's book they like, and ignoring the parts that are inconvenient for them. But you missed it because you could only focus on a card trick not being 100% historically accurate. Which is hella ironic, because all the problems with Christianity he brings up *are* historically accurate. But the believers ignore them, because they're afraid of being ostracized from the group. Which is exactly the point he's making by everyone in the story just going along with it.
@@starofjustice1 Pretty ironic because if I did the atheist card trick only make the "Messiah" in the trick an atheist, saying "Become an atheist" and the people asked "Can you provide proof that God does not exist?" "Can you guarantee that you guys are more moral than religious people?" "Can you guarantee that we won't be looked down upon in society?" And the atheist Messiah said no to all three questions, you would be hating on the trick for the exact same reasons that I'm raising. Also you're completely misrepresenting my point. My point is not that the trick is bad because of the plot within the patter itself. I'm addressing the assumptions, not the trick behind the assumptions. So my whole post is about beliefs not about tricks. The fact remains that every worldview including atheism has been used to justify violence and mass murders. So if you want to talk about historical accuracy then let's talk about real historical accuracy which is that even atheists like yourself are perfectly capable and using anything to justify violence in the name of darwinian evolution. Also I find your comment that Christians are cherry-picking what they want to leave out of the scriptures and what they want to keep it in the scriptures laughable because that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true as opposed to atheism. And by atheism I'm defining it as the belief that God does not exist, which is the classical definition. If you're going to tell me that atheism is not a worldview because it is a lack of belief in God, that would just be going into semantics. Behind every trick there is a message that the performer is intentionally trying to convey is that there are certain things about religion and Christianity in general that you should reject. As a performer if I go out and I tell people to change the world one smile at a time, I'm doing so with the intention to make them consider that bring smiles to people's face makes all the difference in one day. So let's not pretend that the pattern was designed to convey the specific message that Michael intended to portray in his performance. Besides the very fact that you're even responding to me shows the extreme lengths that some skeptics will go to just to justify any amount of mocking towards Christianity and religion at the cost of sacrificing what the actual facts areso if you want to convey a message about an opposing viewpoint, that's totally fine, but represented correctly and not just from your own lens. Intent is always prior to content. Always remember that.
@@josephthomasmusic >>Pretty ironic because if I did the atheist card trick only make the "Messiah" in the trick an atheist, saying "Become an atheist" and the people asked "Can you provide proof that God does not exist?" "Can you guarantee that you guys are more moral than religious people?" "Can you guarantee that we won't be looked down upon in society?">And the atheist Messiah said no to all three questions, you would be hating on the trick for the exact same reasons that I'm raising.Also I find your comment that Christians are cherry-picking what they want to leave out of the scriptures and what they want to keep it in the scriptures laughable because that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true as opposed to atheism.>Besides the very fact that you're even responding to me shows the extreme lengths that some skeptics will go to just to justify any amount of mocking towards Christianity and religion at the cost of sacrificing what the actual facts>areso if you want to convey a message about an opposing viewpoint, that's totally fine, but represented correctly and not just from your own lens. >Intent is always prior to content. Always remember that.
@@starofjustice1 "It's just a dumb card trick. The mechanics are proof of nothing." - Hahaha that's exactly MY point. My point was NEVER about the trick. You're insisting that my point IS about the trick, so yes, you are misrepresenting my point. "But I do stand against ignorance parading as wisdom, which often comes from religion. A topic mentioned in the video." - Again that's ironic because SKEPTICS or CRITICS of religion can be just an ignorant. You seem to be inferring that "ignorance parading as wisdom" is most common in religion and inferring that skeptics/atheists cannot be ignorant. But that begs the question, "ignorance of what"? What are religious people ignorant of? "The point was NEVER about the trick. Who's misrepresenting, again?" - Hahaha you still are because my point was NEVER about the trick. It's about the message that the trick is being used to convey. Do you seriously have a problem with me criticizing the message? Yes there are facts about Christianity's abuse, but there are also facts that are true for the atheist camp, but somehow its not okay to point that out, and you ignoring that fact is proving my point. "You are assuming what I am." - That, you are, correct on. I assumed that you were an atheist, because most of the time it's only ATHEISTS who comment in response. So if you not an atheist, then I apologize. But that does NOT in the least bit take away from my original point, which is that the message is what needs to be scrutinized, not the trick. You're fine with scrutinizing religion but apparently not okay with me scrutinizing your criticism of religion in return, which is the point that I was making from the beginning. IF I turned the mirror back on the atheist, all of the sudden that's not fair. It's a double standard. "You are also further assuming that I excuse violence, because you seem to think all atheists have beliefs rooted in darwinism. That is false. Even I know atheism is not a belief structure or organized group, although the religious like to portray it as such." - I said, "atheists... are perfectly CAPABLE of using anything to justify violence in the name of darwinian evolution." That's exactly what Stalin did, what Pol Pot did, what Mao Ze Tung did. All atheists. Do you deny that atheists are capable of justifying violence also. For some reason, skeptics ALSO get offended by this fact as well, not just Christians over things like the Inquisition. Come on dude. Let's be reasonable here. "Telling you how you're mistaken is not extreme lengths." - Ignoring counteracts and misrepresenting my point IS extreme lengths, bud. The fact of the matter is that Michael closes two questions of what the "Messiah" should guarantee will "not happen" assumes that the truth of Christianity should be reject on its abuse. But by that logic, atheism should be rejected on the same grounds of Stalin's abuse of power. My point is that theoretically, when you examine the claims of Christianity, if Christians commit evil, it is a VIOLATION of the moral law giver's code. If atheists commit evil, it is a LOGICAL outworking of whatever they believe IN PLACE of the moral law giver, and that's a huge difference. So if you want to talk about facts in terms of Christians' abuse, then be fair and talk about atheists' abuse too. But even then it is still irrelevant to whether or not atheism is true or Christianity is true. "No matter what I believe, I'm not the one claiming to speak with the wisdom of an ultimate being as my basis." - Doesn't matter. When you say religion can exude ignorance pretending to be wisdom, that assumes that 1) skepticism/atheism doesn't do the same thing in practice 2) religion is ignorant of what the skeptic views to be realistic, which begs the questions as to what the skeptic believes is reality. That is a claim which ALSO requires the burden of proof. When you define atheism as a lack of belief, you are doing so to avoid taking the responsibility of the burden of proof whenever you make claims about religion. I'm using the word "you" in generic terms. Yes religion makes claims that require the same onus, but to say that atheists who make claims are not required to back up their claims because they don't have a belief, but rather "lack a belief" is just intellectually dishonest. EVERYONE has burden of proof, but for some reason, atheists believe they are magically exempt from it WHENEVER they make claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a slogan based on SUBJECTIVE opinions on what type of evidence is required. It is NOT an objective standard of evidence. So that statement is subject to giving extraordinary evidence for itself because it too is an extraordinary claim. So it's self-defeating. "Problem is, even the Christians can't agree on what they believe, which is why Christianity is the most fractured thing in human history" - That's an example of a claim that requires the burden of proof. Since when does denominational disagreement have any bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. Again I could just as easily say the same thing about atheists, but that would still not determine whether or not the claim "God does not exist" is true. It's a moot point. Christians hate when other Christians act our violence, yet they still remain Christians because hypocrisy does not make the belief system false. All it does is prove that Christians acting out violence are wrong according the standards of Christianity. So your point and Michael's point does nothing to justify skepticism of Christianity as a whole, only Christian hypocrisy, of which I am in the same boat. So why should I become an atheist? That's the point. The message is conveying an imperative to look at religion from the lens of a skeptic, but that would require ignoring additional counteracts and turning the mirror back on itself as you rightfully point out. So again you're not disproving my point. You're only proving it.
oh my, more straw men in here than all the cornfields in Indiana. Michael is an excellent magician; your objections to religion merit similar excellence if you hold your position so dearly.
I think Michael makes a good point. It's true that his presentation is not historically accurate (Jesus' followers, for example, did not ask these questions, and it is likely that they no more asked for evidence than do followers today), but the lack of evidence, lack of safeguards against misinterpretation, etc. are all serious impediments to rationally accepting religious dogma.
Hah you know how easily religious people can be mad when they think this video is an offense to them, its just a story that adds a plot to a card trick, he could of talked about movies, games, professions or anything really.
Alteh no offense to me. I'm a Catholic and a magician. I've watched Michael for over 20 years. I've purchased and used a lot of his material. I believe what I think is important and Michael believes what thinks is true. We have magic in common... Cool.
Good trick, but the plot assumptions are in error. The Council of Nicea did not determine the deity of Christ, that's a common and unfortunate belief among people regarding Christ. Before the Council of Nicea A.D. 325, Ignatius who died around A.D. 105 expressed the view of Christ “There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” So if the argument is that the Council of Nicea determined the deity of Christ, then how so did Ignatius who lived and died more than 200 years prior come up with this viewpoint? Now if you admit that you or another person is in error of the "deity of Christ determined at the Council of Nicea" , what else could you be wrong about?
You are refering to a book written by several people, hundreds of years apart AND hundreds of years after the death of jesus...have you ever played Chinese whispers?
Just because someone may have advocated for Jesus' divinity before the Council of Nicea, this doesn't mean that the Council of Nicea didn't determine the divinity of Jesus, i.e., make Jesus' divinity the official position of the Church.
Charles don't argue with close minded people because you won't change their distorted viewpoint, the problem with so called "Skeptics" is that some might have good skills but they suck as entertainers and that's why no one knows their name as opposed to Blaine, Dinamo and others with possibly less skills but more marketability... as for their history knowledge, I mean some even deny that Christ existed at all, others blame Christianity for justifying slavery(???) and then there is their favorite "Extraordinary Claims Need Extraordinary Evidence" if everything else fails... so what else could they be wrong about? where do you want me to start...
@@kimdanielsen4368 but that the book was written does NOT prove any claims the book made. Harry Potter was written and that is a historical fact. Are wizards real?
Yes - I understand why the cards turned over. It is because Michael Close called upon the forces that oppose Christ. There are only two and he has engaged with the force opposing God. We will offer prayers for you Michael that you see the face of God and your life becomes a joyful one.
@@freakyzed8467, not all cults are religious you can also educate yourself. I'll save you the time Mr.know it all. A cult is a term that doesn't refer to religion at all but is applied to a social movement.
he just flipped the deck at 1:14 how is that a good card trick, besides the whole thing is very boring and that is true for lot of magicians instead of entertaining people they just claim to be "Skeptics," no wonder no one knows their names outside the community...
What a sad, stupid comment. So because you haven't heard of him he is lesser? How about theist performers I have never heard of? Are they diminished because of that? You seem like someone who is easily offended and lashes out because it it.
@@freakyzed8467 come on kid don't make it too easy, whether theist or atheist MAGICIAN can be equally boring!!! problem is when their performance sucks, (they are entertainers first! and I could improve most magicians just by changing their dress code!) and instead of make it more entertaining they BECOME SKEPTICS?! Most don't even know what skepticism stands for. Or that they are selectively skeptic! guys philosophy is not your strong side why don't you stay with magic and try to perform little better, they have the skills just mind is elsewhere...
This non- trick is dripping with arrogance. It is more than unnecessary to be this insulting about a belief that many many people live with and inspires them to be better people than they otherwise might be.
You have to be kidding....but if you're not, I feel sorry for you. Religion, especially Christianity, is responsible for countless and unimaginable butchery in the name of "god". Keep living in a fantasy. LOL
Funny. Believers get to push their religious messages on people all the time with very little push back, but the moment an atheist does the same thing suddenly they are, "dripping with arrogance", and being insulting. Believing in a god that you cannot prove and saying that this belief is true without one shred is good evidence... That is arrogance.
Do this with a Mental Photography deck to add an extra layer of metaphor at the end.
Thank you Michael!
I use several of your effects to illustrate the Gospel (Good News).
the best magic trick of all is when he made your faith disappear.
Figured it out. Now if only I still lived in Tulsa where I've convinced many people I was of the devil with magic tricks...
There are a lot of false assumptions behind this trick. The first assumption is that committee decided on the council of Christ. This is obviously not true because the scriptures themselves actually show Jesus claiming to be a deity and not denying this when the Pharisees tried to Stone him for blasphemy. So the document itself is already claiming Jesus's Divinity before the council of nicea came to a consensus of what the text was saying. So that's the first argument proves that the council of nicea discovered the claims of divinity made by Jesus not that they came to determine his divinity.
The other assumption is when the people asked if he had any evidence to prove that he was the Messiah, Michael says no, but this is clearly in contradiction to what the scripture say. When Jesus clearly performed the miracles in front of the people that was evidence to them that he was the Messiah and he was claiming the same titles that are only given to God himself.
The second assumption is in the following two questions where the people ask the if he can promise that the next two things will not happen. On what grounds does that make the view that Christianity is false simply because people abuse it? That would be like me saying that atheism is false because of the mass murders committed by Pol pot, Mao Ze Tung, and Stalin prove that atheism false. The immediate return of the atheist is that they didn't kill in the name of atheism. So what? You're still saying that because of the actions of people necessitates that the truth of that religion should be put to question. If anything it only proves that the claims of that religion are true because people are acting in accordance with their sinful and will still try to distort the message for their own purposes regardless.
So the assumptions that Michael is using in his card trick are based usually on ignorance and subjective bias.
The false assumption is that you took this way too literally. Honestly. Mistaking a card trick for a history lesson!
It's a quick and dirty analysis of why Christianity is so hecked up.
Why people accept the claims of religion based on warm feelings and wanting to be part of a special group. Whether it's valid or not.
All the horrible things that people let religious leaders get away with, because he says the right things to make it sound like he's doing God's will. Even if he's contradicting the bible.
People cherry picking the parts of God's book they like, and ignoring the parts that are inconvenient for them.
But you missed it because you could only focus on a card trick not being 100% historically accurate. Which is hella ironic, because all the problems with Christianity he brings up *are* historically accurate. But the believers ignore them, because they're afraid of being ostracized from the group.
Which is exactly the point he's making by everyone in the story just going along with it.
@@starofjustice1 Pretty ironic because if I did the atheist card trick only make the "Messiah" in the trick an atheist, saying "Become an atheist" and the people asked "Can you provide proof that God does not exist?" "Can you guarantee that you guys are more moral than religious people?" "Can you guarantee that we won't be looked down upon in society?" And the atheist Messiah said no to all three questions, you would be hating on the trick for the exact same reasons that I'm raising.
Also you're completely misrepresenting my point. My point is not that the trick is bad because of the plot within the patter itself.
I'm addressing the assumptions, not the trick behind the assumptions. So my whole post is about beliefs not about tricks. The fact remains that every worldview including atheism has been used to justify violence and mass murders. So if you want to talk about historical accuracy then let's talk about real historical accuracy which is that even atheists like yourself are perfectly capable and using anything to justify violence in the name of darwinian evolution.
Also I find your comment that Christians are cherry-picking what they want to leave out of the scriptures and what they want to keep it in the scriptures laughable because that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true as opposed to atheism. And by atheism I'm defining it as the belief that God does not exist, which is the classical definition. If you're going to tell me that atheism is not a worldview because it is a lack of belief in God, that would just be going into semantics.
Behind every trick there is a message that the performer is intentionally trying to convey is that there are certain things about religion and Christianity in general that you should reject. As a performer if I go out and I tell people to change the world one smile at a time, I'm doing so with the intention to make them consider that bring smiles to people's face makes all the difference in one day. So let's not pretend that the pattern was designed to convey the specific message that Michael intended to portray in his performance.
Besides the very fact that you're even responding to me shows the extreme lengths that some skeptics will go to just to justify any amount of mocking towards Christianity and religion at the cost of sacrificing what the actual facts areso if you want to convey a message about an opposing viewpoint, that's totally fine, but represented correctly and not just from your own lens.
Intent is always prior to content. Always remember that.
@@josephthomasmusic
>>Pretty ironic because if I did the atheist card trick only make the "Messiah" in the trick an atheist, saying "Become an atheist" and the people asked "Can you provide proof that God does not exist?" "Can you guarantee that you guys are more moral than religious people?" "Can you guarantee that we won't be looked down upon in society?">And the atheist Messiah said no to all three questions, you would be hating on the trick for the exact same reasons that I'm raising.Also I find your comment that Christians are cherry-picking what they want to leave out of the scriptures and what they want to keep it in the scriptures laughable because that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true as opposed to atheism.>Besides the very fact that you're even responding to me shows the extreme lengths that some skeptics will go to just to justify any amount of mocking towards Christianity and religion at the cost of sacrificing what the actual facts>areso if you want to convey a message about an opposing viewpoint, that's totally fine, but represented correctly and not just from your own lens. >Intent is always prior to content. Always remember that.
@@starofjustice1 "It's just a dumb card trick. The mechanics are proof of nothing." - Hahaha that's exactly MY point. My point was NEVER about the trick. You're insisting that my point IS about the trick, so yes, you are misrepresenting my point.
"But I do stand against ignorance parading as wisdom, which often comes from religion. A topic mentioned in the video." - Again that's ironic because SKEPTICS or CRITICS of religion can be just an ignorant. You seem to be inferring that "ignorance parading as wisdom" is most common in religion and inferring that skeptics/atheists cannot be ignorant. But that begs the question, "ignorance of what"? What are religious people ignorant of?
"The point was NEVER about the trick. Who's misrepresenting, again?" - Hahaha you still are because my point was NEVER about the trick. It's about the message that the trick is being used to convey. Do you seriously have a problem with me criticizing the message? Yes there are facts about Christianity's abuse, but there are also facts that are true for the atheist camp, but somehow its not okay to point that out, and you ignoring that fact is proving my point.
"You are assuming what I am." - That, you are, correct on. I assumed that you were an atheist, because most of the time it's only ATHEISTS who comment in response. So if you not an atheist, then I apologize. But that does NOT in the least bit take away from my original point, which is that the message is what needs to be scrutinized, not the trick. You're fine with scrutinizing religion but apparently not okay with me scrutinizing your criticism of religion in return, which is the point that I was making from the beginning. IF I turned the mirror back on the atheist, all of the sudden that's not fair. It's a double standard.
"You are also further assuming that I excuse violence, because you seem to think all atheists have beliefs rooted in darwinism. That is false. Even I know atheism is not a belief structure or organized group, although the religious like to portray it as such." - I said, "atheists... are perfectly CAPABLE of using anything to justify violence in the name of darwinian evolution." That's exactly what Stalin did, what Pol Pot did, what Mao Ze Tung did. All atheists. Do you deny that atheists are capable of justifying violence also. For some reason, skeptics ALSO get offended by this fact as well, not just Christians over things like the Inquisition. Come on dude. Let's be reasonable here.
"Telling you how you're mistaken is not extreme lengths." - Ignoring counteracts and misrepresenting my point IS extreme lengths, bud. The fact of the matter is that Michael closes two questions of what the "Messiah" should guarantee will "not happen" assumes that the truth of Christianity should be reject on its abuse. But by that logic, atheism should be rejected on the same grounds of Stalin's abuse of power. My point is that theoretically, when you examine the claims of Christianity, if Christians commit evil, it is a VIOLATION of the moral law giver's code. If atheists commit evil, it is a LOGICAL outworking of whatever they believe IN PLACE of the moral law giver, and that's a huge difference. So if you want to talk about facts in terms of Christians' abuse, then be fair and talk about atheists' abuse too. But even then it is still irrelevant to whether or not atheism is true or Christianity is true.
"No matter what I believe, I'm not the one claiming to speak with the wisdom of an ultimate being as my basis." - Doesn't matter. When you say religion can exude ignorance pretending to be wisdom, that assumes that
1) skepticism/atheism doesn't do the same thing in practice
2) religion is ignorant of what the skeptic views to be realistic, which begs the questions as to what the skeptic believes is reality.
That is a claim which ALSO requires the burden of proof. When you define atheism as a lack of belief, you are doing so to avoid taking the responsibility of the burden of proof whenever you make claims about religion. I'm using the word "you" in generic terms. Yes religion makes claims that require the same onus, but to say that atheists who make claims are not required to back up their claims because they don't have a belief, but rather "lack a belief" is just intellectually dishonest. EVERYONE has burden of proof, but for some reason, atheists believe they are magically exempt from it WHENEVER they make claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a slogan based on SUBJECTIVE opinions on what type of evidence is required. It is NOT an objective standard of evidence. So that statement is subject to giving extraordinary evidence for itself because it too is an extraordinary claim. So it's self-defeating.
"Problem is, even the Christians can't agree on what they believe, which is why Christianity is the most fractured thing in human history" - That's an example of a claim that requires the burden of proof. Since when does denominational disagreement have any bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. Again I could just as easily say the same thing about atheists, but that would still not determine whether or not the claim "God does not exist" is true. It's a moot point. Christians hate when other Christians act our violence, yet they still remain Christians because hypocrisy does not make the belief system false. All it does is prove that Christians acting out violence are wrong according the standards of Christianity. So your point and Michael's point does nothing to justify skepticism of Christianity as a whole, only Christian hypocrisy, of which I am in the same boat. So why should I become an atheist? That's the point. The message is conveying an imperative to look at religion from the lens of a skeptic, but that would require ignoring additional counteracts and turning the mirror back on itself as you rightfully point out. So again you're not disproving my point. You're only proving it.
oh my, more straw men in here than all the cornfields in Indiana. Michael is an excellent magician; your objections to religion merit similar excellence if you hold your position so dearly.
Totally agree. Michael is an absolutely genius magician, but atrociously historically inaccurate and philosophically nonsensical.
I think Michael makes a good point. It's true that his presentation is not historically accurate (Jesus' followers, for example, did not ask these questions, and it is likely that they no more asked for evidence than do followers today), but the lack of evidence, lack of safeguards against misinterpretation, etc. are all serious impediments to rationally accepting religious dogma.
So can you provide ANY evidence for the extraordinary claims of divinity?
Fantastic message! Very very good ! Love it
i'm so glad i figured this trick out on my own
i was about to think that it was a miracle :D
Hah you know how easily religious people can be mad when they think this video is an offense to them, its just a story that adds a plot to a card trick, he could of talked about movies, games, professions or anything really.
Alteh no offense to me. I'm a Catholic and a magician. I've watched Michael for over 20 years. I've purchased and used a lot of his material. I believe what I think is important and Michael believes what thinks is true. We have magic in common... Cool.
Nice use of the YHVW principle.
Great hand techniques, that is the real magic in all of this.
i neeed to learn this
Love it!
Good trick, but the plot assumptions are in error. The Council of Nicea did not determine the deity of Christ, that's a common and unfortunate belief among people regarding Christ. Before the Council of Nicea A.D. 325,
Ignatius who died around A.D. 105 expressed the view of Christ “There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
So if the argument is that the Council of Nicea determined the deity of Christ, then how so did Ignatius who lived and died more than 200 years prior come up with this viewpoint?
Now if you admit that you or another person is in error of the "deity of Christ determined at the Council of Nicea" , what else could you be wrong about?
You are refering to a book written by several people, hundreds of years apart AND hundreds of years after the death of jesus...have you ever played Chinese whispers?
Just because someone may have advocated for Jesus' divinity before the Council of Nicea, this doesn't mean that the Council of Nicea didn't determine the divinity of Jesus, i.e., make Jesus' divinity the official position of the Church.
Charles don't argue with close minded people because you won't change their distorted viewpoint, the problem with so called "Skeptics" is that some might have good skills but they suck as entertainers and that's why no one knows their name as opposed to Blaine, Dinamo and others with possibly less skills but more marketability... as for their history knowledge, I mean some even deny that Christ existed at all, others blame Christianity for justifying slavery(???) and then there is their favorite "Extraordinary Claims Need Extraordinary Evidence" if everything else fails... so what else could they be wrong about? where do you want me to start...
@@DrGrafenberg He was referring to a book written close to the same time period the event took place and that is a historical fact.
@@kimdanielsen4368 but that the book was written does NOT prove any claims the book made. Harry Potter was written and that is a historical fact. Are wizards real?
SPOILER: Look at 1:14 and 1:15 and you will see the trick. That is one of the problems with doing magic on video!
1:09 the back of the cards are shown to be blue 1:15 the front of the cards are shown to be blue. Good trick still
The atheist says follow me, follow me, follow me and they all did.
Yes - I understand why the cards turned over. It is because Michael Close called upon the forces that oppose Christ. There are only two and he has engaged with the force opposing God. We will offer prayers for you Michael that you see the face of God and your life becomes a joyful one.
😂
So he's in a cult?
Nope. Secularists don't follow any religion. Educate yourself.
@@freakyzed8467 a cult is not a religion though.
@@freakyzed8467, not all cults are religious you can also educate yourself. I'll save you the time Mr.know it all. A cult is a term that doesn't refer to religion at all but is applied to a social movement.
@@CyclopsRat you can call him Mr.Know it all.
@@rickt1951 we got a real genius on our hands
he just flipped the deck at 1:14 how is that a good card trick, besides the whole thing is very boring and that is true for lot of magicians instead of entertaining people they just claim to be "Skeptics," no wonder no one knows their names outside the community...
@@One_In_Training ??? I did not even discuss his history knowledge but don't get me started...
What a sad, stupid comment. So because you haven't heard of him he is lesser? How about theist performers I have never heard of? Are they diminished because of that? You seem like someone who is easily offended and lashes out because it it.
@@freakyzed8467 come on kid don't make it too easy, whether theist or atheist MAGICIAN can be equally boring!!! problem is when their performance sucks, (they are entertainers first! and I could improve most magicians just by changing their dress code!) and instead of make it more entertaining they BECOME SKEPTICS?! Most don't even know what skepticism stands for. Or that they are selectively skeptic! guys philosophy is not your strong side why don't you stay with magic and try to perform little better, they have the skills just mind is elsewhere...
Would be better without the bloated strawman banter.
This non- trick is dripping with arrogance. It is more than unnecessary to be this insulting about a belief that many many people live with and inspires them to be better people than they otherwise might be.
You have to be kidding....but if you're not, I feel sorry for you. Religion, especially Christianity, is responsible for countless and unimaginable butchery in the name of "god". Keep living in a fantasy. LOL
Funny. Believers get to push their religious messages on people all the time with very little push back, but the moment an atheist does the same thing suddenly they are, "dripping with arrogance", and being insulting.
Believing in a god that you cannot prove and saying that this belief is true without one shred is good evidence... That is arrogance.