I want to point out also, that Mircales alone by themselves do not produce faith. Many stood before Jesus and witnessed mircales and yet denied him. Honestly, it takes more faith in science to believe your cells talk to each other, then it does to disbelieve 500 people were wrong about what they saw, a lot of which were the enemies of Christ who has an agenda to disprove his divinity. Drop your best objections to Christianity, and I'll do my best to answer them below.
@@autohrap5884 That's fine by me. I like apologetics in any form. Anyone willing to come forward with a reasonable objection that can be discussed is worth the time, everyone else won't engage in debate because they are afraid.
@ I mean, you can go ahead, it’s unlikely to change their minds because they are getting out of their position what they want… again, it’s manifests well as something sexually liberating, but you’ll find the real twisted and dark stuff when there is not law or governance to cower in fear of. Let there be anarchy long enough and they will be the first to choose being snakes and the rabid brutes because, why not? "Survival of the fittest"
I think there’s a certain brand of theist who uses words like ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ as an insult when applied to faiths other than theirs (cf the old ‘it takes more faith to be an atheist’ chestnut…). It seems inherent to some people’s worldview to assume that everyone must have a ‘religion’ or ‘faith’ in something.
If you believe in fairy tales, you're in the same bin. You are irrational on THAT topic, period. Don't let this guy disingenuously lead you down the path of irrationality. Care about what's real!
Ayaan Hirsi grew up in the faith and spent only a few years as an atheist. She only changed from Islam to Christianity via an atheist interlude. It's not very shocking to me. She was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Not everybody can stare into the abyss of nothingness that awaits us after death.
@@dited358 Christianity is an addictive and powerful religion. I am under no illusions there. It's concepts seem absurd to me but it can be very dangerous and I would never laugh about it. Neither about Islam for that matter.
It’s a bit weird to say he ‘confronts’ her, especially in full caps. I feel if he’d confronted her he would have challenged her rather than inviting her to talk and letting her speak. Was the confrontation bit edited out of this video perhaps despite the title?
Also, Ayian says that the first thing the new atheists get wrong is treating religion all the same and painting it with a broad brush. Sam Harris, arguably the most rationally articulate of all new atheists, said in his old interview with Cenk Uyger and indeed has made this point countless times, is the point that religions are not to be treated all the same. Islam and Christianity and Judaism are not all equally criticizable in the same ways. Some are worse than others.
7:09 an atheist isn’t committed to the view of naturalism. Are some atheist naturalists, sure. But not all and hence not necessarily. I’m an agnostic atheist, which is a reference to my state of confidence with respect to the belief that a supernatural entity exists or has previously existed in history. I don’t think you can prove 100% that god doesn’t exists, in that proving a universal negative is quite an undertaking to review every argument ever written on what god means and refute each. But the positive belief is given from the theist, and my reaction as an atheist is engage sincerely on the fact that I lack belief in said supernatural occurrences. But since atheism isn’t a positive philosophy I can see why a theist might think we doomed to a void and nihilism, however this is only because they think we can’t find a way to get our moral system to graduate with objectivity enough to be worthy of debate consideration. But be warned, a fantastic set of positive philosophical principles, arguments, beliefs and distinct forms have been put forward to date. My most highly revered is the positive philosophy like that given from Alan Watts and Jiddu Krishnamuriti which reflect an eastern approach and wisdom about how god is not an out-there phenomenon. He’s more of an in-here phenomenon of realizing your inseparability with the world around you and how there ultimately is just one.
@ the rituals and forms that a stems from a negative position of lacking a belief, those are fine. Divide into as many denominations as ever. The rituals we can keep. The supernatural beliefs we can dispense with.
@@autohrap5884 what are you talking about? Atheism stands perfectly fine so long as some posits a belief requiring supernatural justification and fails to provide sufficient evidence. Contingent in that sense yes, but so what, it isn’t itself a positive argument or set of them advanced. It’s a denial of another set of positive arguments as such so obviously it doesn’t itself contain additional positive arguments by itself. So it’s weird when theists try to pretend they could broad brush atheists into a single label encompassing more than just the negative critique it levies.
Because one preaches deceit, hatred and violence... while the other teaches forgiveness, wisdom and love... is that not obvious according to the text of Quran vs that of the New Testament?
@JumpCutProYT You are going to have to clarify which is "the one" vs "the other" Because Muslims don't consider their religion hateful. It just shows your bias.
@maxwellmaxwell3042 You can pretend they are different if you cherry pick the good bits of one and compare it to the bad bits of the other. You forgot about crusades?
Ayan Hirsi Ali claims that people who leave Christianity adopt other beliefs because atheism leads to nihilism. This by itself is debatable but let's say it is true. What's wrong with it? What is wrong in abandoning Christianity for some other faith?
@ She mentioned it as one of the negative side-effects of atheism. She implied that they abandon the good faith in order to follow other lesser faiths.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@@truthgiver8286 I don’t think you understand that there is an overwhelming amount of sufficient evidence. Both historical and contemporary. There’s just simply too much evidence to write off both God the Father and Christ.
@@JumpCutProYT I have listened to theists for more years than I care to think about and the only evidence they have ever come up with is speculation and or assumptions. If you actually have evidence then why not present it...... I hope it is more than it looks complicated therefore it must be god!
Saying that atheists see theists as not rational is another straw man fallacy. Of course most religious people are rational when they deal with things other than their religion. Religious people think differently when their religion is concerned and differently for other matters. As for whether religions themselves are rational, Christianity in particular is not rational. You can't have a religion with a central concept like the holy trinity and claim that it is rational.
@@YorgosSimeonidis Well that Christianity wouldn't be rational, The Trinity is quite clear laid out. One being with 3 persons sounds on paper a big complicated but it actually isn't. Especially considering that this is OUR interpretation of the text. The Trinity is even the logical Conclusion of the text. if we would want the easiest to understand version of it. We would just say there are 3 Gods problem solved.
@@Matze1988ok I have to make it clear that rational and true are not necessarily the same thing. Maybe there are parts of reality that are not rational, who knows? When we examine the rationality of Christianity it is only about whether its concepts are logical. Now, this description “one being with three persons” needs to be examined. We have God, the being, and then the three persons which are father, the son and the holy spirit. 1] The father is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the father and God. 2] The son is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the son and God. The logical conclusion would be that the father and the son are one and the same but at this point the concept of the holy trinity exits logic. The father and the son, according to the Christian doctrine, are the same and not the same at the same time. Theology tries to confuse the issue by saying that they are the same in essence but have different hypostases. For logic this comes in conflict with the previous statement that the three members of the trinity are God in every respect. Which is it? Are they God in every respect or are they God in essence only and each one has its own hypostasis? Theology says that the divine essence is ALL they are. In that case what is the hypostasis? Isn’t it part of who they are? This is not really complicated. It is presented deliberately in a complicated way in an attempt to conceal its logical contradiction. All there is in the holy trinity concept in reality, is what I stated in phrases 1] and 2]. The rest is theological smoke and mirrors. I have to repeat that we are only talking about the logic of the concept. We are not talking about some divine truth or some different, distant divine logic. We are only talking about the good old human tried and tested logic. This is lacking from the concept.
@@Matze1988ok I have to make it clear that rational and true are not necessarily the same thing. Maybe there are parts of reality that are not rational, who knows? When we examine the rationality of Christianity it is only about whether its concepts are logical. Now, this description “one being with three persons” needs to be examined. We have God, the being, and then the three persons which are father, the son and the holy spirit. 1] The father is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the father and God. 2] The son is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the son and God. The logical conclusion would be that the father and the son are one and the same but at this point the concept of the holy trinity exits logic. The father and the son, according to the Christian doctrine, are the same and not the same at the same time. Theology tries to confuse the issue by saying that they are the same in essence but have different hypostases. For logic this comes in conflict with the previous statement that the three members of the trinity are God in every respect. Which is it? Are they God in every respect or are they God in essence only and each one has its own hypostasis? Theology says that the divine essence is ALL they are. In that case what is the hypostasis? Isn’t it part of who they are? This is not really complicated. It is presented deliberately in a complicated way in an attempt to conceal its logical contradiction. All there is in the holy trinity concept in reality, is what I stated in phrases 1] and 2]. The rest is theological smoke and mirrors. I have to repeat that we are only talking about the logic of the concept. We are not talking about some divine truth or some different, distant divine logic. We are only talking about the good old human tried and tested logic. This is lacking from the concept.
You used many logical fallacies throughout this video. One example is when talking about the many great scientists who also believed in a God. Just because these scientists used rational thought in their scientific discoveries does not mean that believing in God is also rational. Therefore, many of your arguments are not reasonable.
How is your personal experience and observations a standard for what is possible? You have faith in science that protons exist, because there's technical writing on the subject, well... there's also technical writing on the life of Christ in much the same way. You are the standard of what's possible.
@@JumpCutProYT science gives us the ability to explain and predict reality. It works. Religion has never predicted anything, and not from a lack of trying
@ the destruction of Tyre, the conquest of Babylon, The birth and death of Christ… these are all examples of the Bible accurately predicting reality…. I think what you mean to say is that science gives you the means to ATTEMPT to explain the FUNCTIONS of reality and predict very SPECIFIC events under controlled circumstances. Sciences has to change its understanding quite often, the bible does not… just because science can explain natural wonders does not mean they are not miracles… like the birth of a child, or how we live on a planet with high unlikely conditions for life… science tries to explain what God creates
Atheists put all religions under the same umbrella in the sense that they are all unsubstantiated. Otherwise they have similarities and differences. For example the problem of evil, which is a common atheist argument works only with the Abrahamic religions where you have an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the world and his shitty creation. In other religions gods are not the creators of the world or they are not omnipotent and omnibenevolent or there are counterbalancing forces of evil. Still I don't think that atheists consider all religions as the same in every respect.
God has sufficient reason to let evil exist. That's how easy the problem of evil is debunked, but theists try to actually understand God, surprisingly.
@ If God has sufficient reason to let evil exist he is evil himself. The problem of evil can not be answered so easily. Furthermore in a world that is created by a God who controlled every tiny detail evil does not just exist on its own. God did not just let evil exist. He created it deliberately. Just by creating vulnerable beings he created evil.
@@YorgosSimeonidis Well it indeed can be answered that easily, For us Christians death is not the end of the road. I'm sure you aware of that. While for Atheists it might be this huge problem, for Christians not so much. Because we believe that God is perfectly just which implies that he will make it right. I don't know where you get it from that every tiny detail was controlled by God when we get from the bible agency/free will... where is the control in that?
@@Matze1988ok Vulnerability does not lead only to death. Vulnerability leads to all kinds of suffering and this concerns everybody. No vulnerability means no suffering and no suffering means no evil. If living beings had no vulnerabilities all the free will in the world wouldn't be able to be the cause of any evil. As for the fear of death, the problem is not after having died. The problem is the procedure of death. It is the loss of physical and mental control. It is the gradual decline. These things are experienced by Christians and atheists alike. That is the true fear of death and, let's be honest, everybody is afraid of dying. After having died things are different. Most atheists assume that after death there is absolute nothingness. The same nothingness that existed before they were born. There is nothing to be afraid about that. On the other hand a Christian knows that there is a chance of ending up in hell. That is something to be afraid of.
@@YorgosSimeonidis Have fun trying to prove that suffering is objectively evil, your subjective opinion wont make it. In a naturalistic Atheistic View nothing matters, good and evil doesn't exist you cant even ground it in anything. Christians are actually less scared of death, there are studies on such topics. They are also on avg happier people.
I want to point out also, that Mircales alone by themselves do not produce faith. Many stood before Jesus and witnessed mircales and yet denied him. Honestly, it takes more faith in science to believe your cells talk to each other, then it does to disbelieve 500 people were wrong about what they saw, a lot of which were the enemies of Christ who has an agenda to disprove his divinity. Drop your best objections to Christianity, and I'll do my best to answer them below.
@@JumpCutProYT the objections you will be given will not be the real reasons, the real reasons are primal and unreasonably selfish.
@@autohrap5884 That's fine by me. I like apologetics in any form. Anyone willing to come forward with a reasonable objection that can be discussed is worth the time, everyone else won't engage in debate because they are afraid.
@ I mean, you can go ahead, it’s unlikely to change their minds because they are getting out of their position what they want… again, it’s manifests well as something sexually liberating, but you’ll find the real twisted and dark stuff when there is not law or governance to cower in fear of.
Let there be anarchy long enough and they will be the first to choose being snakes and the rabid brutes because, why not? "Survival of the fittest"
How is "wokeism" a religion? Who they believe in? What are their rituals? Do they have clergy? Do they have places for worship?
I think there’s a certain brand of theist who uses words like ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ as an insult when applied to faiths other than theirs (cf the old ‘it takes more faith to be an atheist’ chestnut…). It seems inherent to some people’s worldview to assume that everyone must have a ‘religion’ or ‘faith’ in something.
As Former Atheist lm so grateful l turned to JESUS ❤
Yuck
If you believe in fairy tales, you're in the same bin. You are irrational on THAT topic, period.
Don't let this guy disingenuously lead you down the path of irrationality. Care about what's real!
Ayaan Hirsi grew up in the faith and spent only a few years as an atheist. She only changed from Islam to Christianity via an atheist interlude. It's not very shocking to me. She was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Not everybody can stare into the abyss of nothingness that awaits us after death.
Eh, cool armchair psychoanalysis, doesn't change the facts.
@@dited358 Christianity is an addictive and powerful religion. I am under no illusions there. It's concepts seem absurd to me but it can be very dangerous and I would never laugh about it. Neither about Islam for that matter.
@@dited358 it doesnt matter either way
@@dited358 There's a better prognosis for people who grow up without religion. They are not immune, but a relapse is a greater risk.
It’s a bit weird to say he ‘confronts’ her, especially in full caps. I feel if he’d confronted her he would have challenged her rather than inviting her to talk and letting her speak. Was the confrontation bit edited out of this video perhaps despite the title?
Also, Ayian says that the first thing the new atheists get wrong is treating religion all the same and painting it with a broad brush.
Sam Harris, arguably the most rationally articulate of all new atheists, said in his old interview with Cenk Uyger and indeed has made this point countless times, is the point that religions are not to be treated all the same. Islam and Christianity and Judaism are not all equally criticizable in the same ways. Some are worse than others.
7:09 an atheist isn’t committed to the view of naturalism. Are some atheist naturalists, sure. But not all and hence not necessarily. I’m an agnostic atheist, which is a reference to my state of confidence with respect to the belief that a supernatural entity exists or has previously existed in history. I don’t think you can prove 100% that god doesn’t exists, in that proving a universal negative is quite an undertaking to review every argument ever written on what god means and refute each. But the positive belief is given from the theist, and my reaction as an atheist is engage sincerely on the fact that I lack belief in said supernatural occurrences. But since atheism isn’t a positive philosophy I can see why a theist might think we doomed to a void and nihilism, however this is only because they think we can’t find a way to get our moral system to graduate with objectivity enough to be worthy of debate consideration. But be warned, a fantastic set of positive philosophical principles, arguments, beliefs and distinct forms have been put forward to date. My most highly revered is the positive philosophy like that given from Alan Watts and Jiddu Krishnamuriti which reflect an eastern approach and wisdom about how god is not an out-there phenomenon. He’s more of an in-here phenomenon of realizing your inseparability with the world around you and how there ultimately is just one.
@@davidmireles9774 all these atheistic denominations appearing… looks like even the atheist can’t get away from it lol
@ the rituals and forms that a stems from a negative position of lacking a belief, those are fine. Divide into as many denominations as ever. The rituals we can keep. The supernatural beliefs we can dispense with.
@@davidmireles9774atheism couldn’t stand on its own… not even a little bit. It is a cute worldview bitterly riding the coattails of believers.
@@autohrap5884 At least it's not pretending to know lol. The one most certain is most likely to be the biggest fool.
@@autohrap5884 what are you talking about? Atheism stands perfectly fine so long as some posits a belief requiring supernatural justification and fails to provide sufficient evidence. Contingent in that sense yes, but so what, it isn’t itself a positive argument or set of them advanced. It’s a denial of another set of positive arguments as such so obviously it doesn’t itself contain additional positive arguments by itself. So it’s weird when theists try to pretend they could broad brush atheists into a single label encompassing more than just the negative critique it levies.
She thinks Christianity and Islam are *completely different*
... because?
Maybe you need to read about Jesus and Muhammed.
Because one preaches deceit, hatred and violence... while the other teaches forgiveness, wisdom and love... is that not obvious according to the text of Quran vs that of the New Testament?
Because they are completely different. Unless you ignore culture, beliefs, and practice. Then you can pretend all religions are the same
@JumpCutProYT You are going to have to clarify which is "the one" vs "the other"
Because Muslims don't consider their religion hateful.
It just shows your bias.
@maxwellmaxwell3042 You can pretend they are different if you cherry pick the good bits of one and compare it to the bad bits of the other.
You forgot about crusades?
Ayan Hirsi Ali claims that people who leave Christianity adopt other beliefs because atheism leads to nihilism. This by itself is debatable but let's say it is true. What's wrong with it? What is wrong in abandoning Christianity for some other faith?
She didnt say that it is wrong.
@ She mentioned it as one of the negative side-effects of atheism. She implied that they abandon the good faith in order to follow other lesser faiths.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
How many of these questions need to be satisfied before you believe in something?
What do you believe created everything?
@autohrap5884 what about answers that lead to disbelieving?
@@a535r2d2what? Created?
@@autohrap5884 Which questions?
Is the term "New Atheism" a thing or is it something that theists came up with, and only they use it?
I am an atheist because I grew up with the Abrahamic religion and find it incredulous I simply don't believe.
@@truthgiver8286 what is the abrahamic religion as you understand it?
@@autohrap5884 What it says in the bible.
@@truthgiver8286 I don’t think you understand that there is an overwhelming amount of sufficient evidence. Both historical and contemporary. There’s just simply too much evidence to write off both God the Father and Christ.
@@JumpCutProYTWhat's the best evidence historical or contemporary?
@@JumpCutProYT I have listened to theists for more years than I care to think about and the only evidence they have ever come up with is speculation and or assumptions. If you actually have evidence then why not present it...... I hope it is more than it looks complicated therefore it must be god!
Saying that atheists see theists as not rational is another straw man fallacy. Of course most religious people are rational when they deal with things other than their religion. Religious people think differently when their religion is concerned and differently for other matters. As for whether religions themselves are rational, Christianity in particular is not rational. You can't have a religion with a central concept like the holy trinity and claim that it is rational.
Not true
@ What is not true?
@@YorgosSimeonidis Well that Christianity wouldn't be rational, The Trinity is quite clear laid out. One being with 3 persons sounds on paper a big complicated but it actually isn't. Especially considering that this is OUR interpretation of the text. The Trinity is even the logical Conclusion of the text.
if we would want the easiest to understand version of it. We would just say there are 3 Gods problem solved.
@@Matze1988ok I have to make it clear that rational and true are not necessarily the same thing. Maybe there are parts of reality that are not rational, who knows? When we examine the rationality of Christianity it is only about whether its concepts are logical. Now, this description “one being with three persons” needs to be examined.
We have God, the being, and then the three persons which are father, the son and the holy spirit.
1] The father is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the father and God.
2] The son is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the son and God.
The logical conclusion would be that the father and the son are one and the same but at this point the concept of the holy trinity exits logic. The father and the son, according to the Christian doctrine, are the same and not the same at the same time.
Theology tries to confuse the issue by saying that they are the same in essence but have different hypostases. For logic this comes in conflict with the previous statement that the three members of the trinity are God in every respect. Which is it? Are they God in every respect or are they God in essence only and each one has its own hypostasis?
Theology says that the divine essence is ALL they are. In that case what is the hypostasis? Isn’t it part of who they are?
This is not really complicated. It is presented deliberately in a complicated way in an attempt to conceal its logical contradiction. All there is in the holy trinity concept in reality, is what I stated in phrases 1] and 2]. The rest is theological smoke and mirrors.
I have to repeat that we are only talking about the logic of the concept. We are not talking about some divine truth or some different, distant divine logic. We are only talking about the good old human tried and tested logic. This is lacking from the concept.
@@Matze1988ok I have to make it clear that rational and true are not necessarily the same thing. Maybe there are parts of reality that are not rational, who knows? When we examine the rationality of Christianity it is only about whether its concepts are logical. Now, this description “one being with three persons” needs to be examined.
We have God, the being, and then the three persons which are father, the son and the holy spirit.
1] The father is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the father and God.
2] The son is God. He is God in every respect. There is no difference between the son and God.
The logical conclusion would be that the father and the son are one and the same but at this point the concept of the holy trinity exits logic. The father and the son, according to the Christian doctrine, are the same and not the same at the same time.
Theology tries to confuse the issue by saying that they are the same in essence but have different hypostases. For logic this comes in conflict with the previous statement that the three members of the trinity are God in every respect. Which is it? Are they God in every respect or are they God in essence only and each one has its own hypostasis?
Theology says that the divine essence is ALL they are. In that case what is the hypostasis? Isn’t it part of who they are?
This is not really complicated. It is presented deliberately in a complicated way in an attempt to conceal its logical contradiction. All there is in the holy trinity concept in reality, is what I stated in phrases 1] and 2]. The rest is theological smoke and mirrors.
I have to repeat that we are only talking about the logic of the concept. We are not talking about some divine truth or some different, distant divine logic. We are only talking about the good old human tried and tested logic. This is lacking from the concept.
You used many logical fallacies throughout this video. One example is when talking about the many great scientists who also believed in a God. Just because these scientists used rational thought in their scientific discoveries does not mean that believing in God is also rational. Therefore, many of your arguments are not reasonable.
Alex O'Conner himself would disagree that believing in god is not rational.
How is your personal experience and observations a standard for what is possible? You have faith in science that protons exist, because there's technical writing on the subject, well... there's also technical writing on the life of Christ in much the same way. You are the standard of what's possible.
@@JumpCutProYT science gives us the ability to explain and predict reality. It works. Religion has never predicted anything, and not from a lack of trying
@ the destruction of Tyre, the conquest of Babylon, The birth and death of Christ… these are all examples of the Bible accurately predicting reality…. I think what you mean to say is that science gives you the means to ATTEMPT to explain the FUNCTIONS of reality and predict very SPECIFIC events under controlled circumstances. Sciences has to change its understanding quite often, the bible does not… just because science can explain natural wonders does not mean they are not miracles… like the birth of a child, or how we live on a planet with high unlikely conditions for life… science tries to explain what God creates
Please don't compare VERIFIABLE FACTS to fairy tales.
@ There’s an insane amount of secular publishings that verify quite a bit about the Bible. Are you unaware of this?
Atheists put all religions under the same umbrella in the sense that they are all unsubstantiated. Otherwise they have similarities and differences. For example the problem of evil, which is a common atheist argument works only with the Abrahamic religions where you have an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the world and his shitty creation. In other religions gods are not the creators of the world or they are not omnipotent and omnibenevolent or there are counterbalancing forces of evil. Still I don't think that atheists consider all religions as the same in every respect.
God has sufficient reason to let evil exist. That's how easy the problem of evil is debunked, but theists try to actually understand God, surprisingly.
@ If God has sufficient reason to let evil exist he is evil himself. The problem of evil can not be answered so easily. Furthermore in a world that is created by a God who controlled every tiny detail evil does not just exist on its own. God did not just let evil exist. He created it deliberately. Just by creating vulnerable beings he created evil.
@@YorgosSimeonidis Well it indeed can be answered that easily, For us Christians death is not the end of the road. I'm sure you aware of that. While for Atheists it might be this huge problem, for Christians not so much. Because we believe that God is perfectly just which implies that he will make it right.
I don't know where you get it from that every tiny detail was controlled by God when we get from the bible agency/free will... where is the control in that?
@@Matze1988ok Vulnerability does not lead only to death. Vulnerability leads to all kinds of suffering and this concerns everybody. No vulnerability means no suffering and no suffering means no evil. If living beings had no vulnerabilities all the free will in the world wouldn't be able to be the cause of any evil. As for the fear of death, the problem is not after having died. The problem is the procedure of death. It is the loss of physical and mental control. It is the gradual decline. These things are experienced by Christians and atheists alike. That is the true fear of death and, let's be honest, everybody is afraid of dying. After having died things are different. Most atheists assume that after death there is absolute nothingness. The same nothingness that existed before they were born. There is nothing to be afraid about that. On the other hand a Christian knows that there is a chance of ending up in hell. That is something to be afraid of.
@@YorgosSimeonidis Have fun trying to prove that suffering is objectively evil, your subjective opinion wont make it. In a naturalistic Atheistic View nothing matters, good and evil doesn't exist you cant even ground it in anything.
Christians are actually less scared of death, there are studies on such topics. They are also on avg happier people.