Morality from yahweh and christian doctrine are purely subjective. Killing is wrong, until you need to justify a war or if someone with authority asks for it. You should love everyone, unless they're gay or non religious or another religion etc.
@@BradBDG that’s incorrect. Killing isn’t immoral, murder and killing aren’t the same. Fail #1 Fail #2. We are called the love homosexuals, and we are called to ask them to refrain from action and repent. Gay is an activity not a being. Massive L for you
@@MadebyJimbob so the commandment "thou shalt not kill" are we ignoring that or bringing it down to semantics and subjective interpretation of killing..? Also, killing isn't immoral? Sexuality is an inherent part of humanity, brushing your teeth is an activity, to deny a homosexual the freedom to love is to deny them their humanity
You’re misunderstanding what we mean by subjective. We are saying that in the atheist worldview, moral standards are mere subjective OPINIONS, thoughts that are SUBJECT to human minds, and not objective FACTS that are true outside of the human mind. That is what we mean. We believe that It is an objective fact that killing can be moral if it is done in a just war or done to a very evil person in the d3ath penalty, but immoral if done to an innocent person. Conditions or contexts that determine whether an action is moral or not doesn’t mean morality is “subjective.” [It is not immoral to step on a bug but it is to step on an innocent human]
@@BradBDG Thou shalt not kill is more appropriately rendered "thou shalt not murder". And no, killing isn't always immoral - the death penalty for instance can be a just act of killing. Also, imagine thinking saying that disallowing sodomy is a denial of someone's humanity. No, denial of someone's urges (sexual or not) is not a denial of their humanity, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
@@d.rey5743 i appreciate the last bit but christians have tormented LGBTQ+ people for generations because of their scripture and teachings. Morality doesn't exist outside the human mind. Look at the volume of denominations of christianity is it because the morality of the bible is conducive to morality through empathy and objective to all cultures and people? You thinking that bugs are insignificant to people doesn't make it an objective fact that they should be killed, are they not also god's creatures? does god himself, the almighty not take care of even the bird in the tree?
In the first 40 minutes they've already said multiple times that they dont have an objective morality, it's just relative. So they dont ground morality on anything. They concede the debate
It’s also funny how they thought saying that God allows child grape (which he doesn’t) is immoral when they’ve already stated that morality is subjective😂😂😂
Any secularist listening to this debate must now re-evaluate their worldview. These Orthodox men just made the absurdity of the secular position obvious. It’s all relative man.
@@FlowStateBro you didn’t even know that circumcision isn’t required in Christianity when you thought you had that gotcha. lol Ps…secular heathen culture does circumcision too based on “muh medical science” 🤡
@@FlowState Any theistic position can ground a moral standard. Even Islam has a more grounded & coherent moral standard than you guys. You guys got exposed for the clowns you are.
About Grape thing. Genesis 34:7 Literally says that it OUGHT NOT TO NE DONE. That’s verbatim in the RSV, NKJV, KJV, LSB. It’s paraphrased in the major other ones. Tag in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 Genesis 24:58 for consent to marriage Then literally every verse about love thy neighbour and etc. Not to mention that orthodoxy is NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA.
They weren't even making that bad argument correctly. The way the argument goes is: P1: Bible says grape bad P2: God commands grape C: Morality changes as God sees fit But they were so scatterbrained that they started saying saying P1 isn't even in the Bible. If P2 were true and that were the case, then it would be consistent but just not in accord with what they like.
Why do these fools keep asking JB and DPH "can you?" This isn't about whether or not OC's can ground their morality but whether secularists can which they admitted they can't. It's all trends, all subjective, all arbitrary with them. Then realizing they could never ground anything they just spent two hours saying "but gawd bad he wet duh wittle gurl get touched!!!". Not realizing they don't have a standard for that being wrong either.
They can’t see that saying "you can ground morality in whatever" levels the playing field: my grounding is no better than yours and vice versa. Only thing is you prefer X, I prefer Y. That’s it.
I love your facial expressions Jimbob. This tells me that you are actually listening to your opponents because you are reacting with your face. Good job man!
Caught the tail end of this. As much humour as there is to be found in these debate streams, a moments reflection & it's still funny but mostly in a sad way. Can't help but pity unbelievers, they're stuck in an infinitely replicating autistic fever dream. These horrendously misshapen ways of thinking that is being presented by them all these debates isn't only going to be compartmentalized to what we see when they speak of beliefs surrounding morals & logic. It extends to their attitudes in *all* areas of their life. If they have even a smidge of self awareness, how miserable must that be? Imagine being so worthless? That is *extremely* funny to think about.
They can have an issue with the Orthodox Christian perspective on morality and ethics, whatever. But to not realize their own moral systems are completely flawed is hilarious. And they admit it's flawed.
Masterfully done. Pitting the knowledge gained from all those chats with FlowState versus the worldview gleaned from your prep-work on the other guy. The house of cards they didn't even build themselves has crumbled under the weight of their own internal conflict. I do think the debate turned succinctly however, shortly before that, with DPH's confident disembowelment of GE's distortion of Biblical Numbers. The remainder was just a thrashing. A celebrated victory for the troops, too bad the spoils of the battle will just be the tears of two more vindictive, whiny atheists.
Do you think the two atheists just don’t understand what grounding means. That is it needs be something universal and objective. Or they understand it but don’t want to concede out of pride - but if that’s the case then why agree to the debate?
I think ultimately most atheists just don't understand what it means to ground something. They think just stating the thing or saying they have the thing is grounding.
Grounding: The act, method, or process of laying a groundwork or foundation. Elementary instruction; instruction in the basic concepts of a topic or skill. No, groundings don't need to be universal or objective. Next.
@@joeyn985 i understand that the religious argument collapses entirely without a) necessitating a grounding be universal & permanent, and b) trying to insist that the church meets that criteria... unfortunately, a) isn't required and b) isn't true anyway. Take 2 L's and do not pass go.
Good job Jim Bob.. amazing these atheists hate God so much that will grasp at anything the push Him away.. You and DPH represented our side well as always
And speaking to others in the room on camera during the debate. As far as I'm concerned this is a formal debate and conversing with others that aren't participating in the debate is bad form.
Flowstate is a meathead. I'm not exactly sure how he's made it on to panels with the likes of Andrew Wilson and JimBob. It may be because Tomato is being charitable, but still.
Just stopping in to check this debate out. Finished watching Tim Bool debate Andrew on Philo/theology. Beany Man isn't equipped for debate. Hope this is a good show.
1. andrew: there are no rights 2. tim: don´t take my rights away 3. repeat sprinkle on it the nasaly comments of the most annoying girl they could find, and you have a show
2:02:39 He acted like a true godless moral relativist. Allowed his wife to talk shit but not allowed Jimbob to do the same. I'm really sad for his kids.
GE shouldn't have been on this stream. Dude has absolutely no clue what grounding even is and then refers to a theist as to why God doesn't ground morality.
Guess imma have to view twice… 1st time for the chat, 2nd time for debate HAHAHAH this chat is always makin me laf. Ps: truthfully watching debate 1st. Also, man the arrogance of engineers. Spent some years during and after highschool in mechanical engineering dept for aerospace components. Myself included, tho to a lesser degree (and have since recovered) the god-complex makes you wanna vomit. FlowState didnt vibe like that, and props to him cuz even tho I disagree w/ him on this topic, I could hangout w him 100%. He’s probably not dckhead father either. Finally, DPH and JB r legends, as demo’d here.
Philosophy consists of several branches, metaphysical grounding and epistemic grounding may not be written the same way . The question isn’t whether or not a source can be produced. The question is, did the oppponents know what is meant by grounding
@@MadebyJimbob that's not what I requested. It certainly does matter if a source can be produced. Otherwise if I were in a debate with you I would just assert something different.
Better to defend Orthodoxy having no relationship with Christ, than to wax utilitarian or naturalist. The latter brought us Marx, the former brought us saints, prophets, and men & women whom have given fully of themselves (even their own lives) for the good of us as a species. Orthodoxy is built upon the cornerstone of Jesus, and upon that rock is the wisdom and tireless efforts of His beloved apostles, who sacrificed many opportunities for blind power in favor of guiding mankind out of darkness and I to a better world where crime and sin, fully defined, could be reduced, all the better for ethics and virtues to rise among our traits to be the greatest elements of our character. Even if you are not a believer, what more beautiful though is there than God, so loving his flawed and wicked creations, that he would make Himself mortal, to walk as we do, and then suffer profoundly for love of us, deserving only misery due our degeneracy, and die for our salvation and eternal life? Who will you ever know in life that would love you nearly as much as that? What greater love could exist? That love is our best and greatest hope for building a world where we can come to a better life, more free from our dark traits, and instinctual cruelties, to embrace a future so bright we can't behold it even through welding goggles. This is why, as a heathen, I would wish for a Christian-Orthodox led society. It's the best hope for living in hope.
Not even a half hour in and these guys unwittingly defeat their own position and when asked about an objective “truth of reality” he appeals to opinions about what occurs in his fake pseudoscience cosmology. Oufffffff 😂🤦♂️
Furthermore, I’d love for Mr Heathen Bible scholar to give one citation in the Bible where God condones or commands any child SA. In fact, throughout the scripture God condemns ALL sexual immorality of ANY kind persistently and consistently. Just because these things occur in the scriptures (because the Bible is historical), and usually by pagan heathens like Bam Bam Bigelow’s retarded twin brother, doesn’t logically follow that he condones or affirms it.
Furthermore, I’d love for Mr Heathen Bible Scholar to give one citation where God affirms, condones or commands child SA. In fact, if these guys had even a cursory knowledge of the Bible they would know God persistently and consistently condemns ALL forms of sexual immorality. Just because some people in Scripture committed such an act doesn’t mean God approved, condoned or commanded it. And in Scripture, the people who would engage in such acts were usually always the pagan/secular heathens like this Dollar Tree Bam Bam Bigelow.
2:18:14 when flowstate holds up a lighter and says we would know it's not the key to his car, that's not actually true. If I, as a talented engineer, made my car start by needing a lighter, then that would be the key to my car. I get to decide how to construct mechanisms, and lighters aren't some special category of things that can't be used as another thing. All it would take is a liar to assert a lighter cannot start a car, and a believer believing him, it's only subjective, lighters aren't objectively only usable as a lighter. All he did was leverage human assumption about lighters, he used hidden premises.
@@jesterprivilege I was tempted to push back on that in real time, being that if you gave a lighter to a Papua New Guinea tribe they may not know what it was at all.
@@MadebyJimbob @MadebyJimbob that's true. My mind went to immediately design a mechanism that would allow me to start a car or unlock one, with that shape. I think it's important to not let these people push hidden premises. It's actually a topic I want to expand on. If you have a panel stream, I have a theory on a tag-like argument that describes deceptions mechanics, or something like that.
@@MadebyJimbob mechanics of prattle, rather. I tried to describe it some months back, but it's not as easy to grasp as a simple fallacy, but it may use them. As someone who has used deception, and hearing deceptive people, I am quite certain that "prattle" is either well thought out, or learned behavior that comes easier, but is certainly not void of meaning. I have been trying to deconstruct this prattle stuff.
I feel like they were trying to look at free will through a linear predetermined perspective, and that caused the disconnect. If God is all-knowing and free will exists, God doesn't just know every step before we make it,he knows every outcome to every choice put before us and spectates as we use free will to navigate those decisions/choices. So if I choose to put on the blue tie over the red tie, I'm not fooling God, I'm making a decision in regards to a multiple number of choices that were put before me. God knows those decisions, not because he pre determined them, but because he isn't confined by the laws of time and space.
Nice, you reworded the debate to suit your needs. The debate was "Secularism vs Christianity: Can we ground morality without God?" Thus you have a burden as well. If neither of you fulfill that burden, then you both lose. You keep avoiding your burden.
What's the burden? God grounds morality because the universe is created to reflect God, and our goodness is thereby determined by how well we reflect him.
@@joshuaparsons887 That's only if God exists. They would have to defend how God exists. Their burden would be: "No, we cannot ground morality without God." But if they don't demonstrate a God actually exists it's no better than claiming you cannot ground morality without Gandalf. A ground has to actually exist.
@@theuncarvedblock6565 if you consider that every aspect of philosophy is linked to every other aspect then it's perfectly on topic. Regardless, for knowledge to exist, multiple preconditions are required. One simple example is that we can come to truth through logic and reasoning. Do you affirm this to be the case, and how do you account for this?
What's the point of creating all the souls that won't make it to heaven. If God knows even before he creates them, why create the ones he knows will fail?
If you're ultimately asking "why did God create the universe", the ultimate answer is "we don't know". But we do know that all serve to glorify God. Us who worship Him glorify God in His love and mercy, and those who reject God glorify Him in his justice and righteousness.
I'm asking what's the point of creating the souls that will go to the lake if he already knows that they will even before he creates them. I'm not asking about the whole universe
but, yes, as a person on the "side" of GE, he did poorly. It's not a debate he should have participated in. Perhaps you can debate him on whether Jesus existed or not. And it has to be the Jesus you believe existed, not some unknown guy that started a movement.
Morality from yahweh and christian doctrine are purely subjective. Killing is wrong, until you need to justify a war or if someone with authority asks for it. You should love everyone, unless they're gay or non religious or another religion etc.
@@BradBDG that’s incorrect. Killing isn’t immoral, murder and killing aren’t the same. Fail #1
Fail #2. We are called the love homosexuals, and we are called to ask them to refrain from action and repent. Gay is an activity not a being.
Massive L for you
@@MadebyJimbob so the commandment "thou shalt not kill" are we ignoring that or bringing it down to semantics and subjective interpretation of killing..? Also, killing isn't immoral? Sexuality is an inherent part of humanity, brushing your teeth is an activity, to deny a homosexual the freedom to love is to deny them their humanity
You’re misunderstanding what we mean by subjective. We are saying that in the atheist worldview, moral standards are mere subjective OPINIONS, thoughts that are SUBJECT to human minds, and not objective FACTS that are true outside of the human mind. That is what we mean. We believe that It is an objective fact that killing can be moral if it is done in a just war or done to a very evil person in the d3ath penalty, but immoral if done to an innocent person. Conditions or contexts that determine whether an action is moral or not doesn’t mean morality is “subjective.”
[It is not immoral to step on a bug but it is to step on an innocent human]
@@BradBDG Thou shalt not kill is more appropriately rendered "thou shalt not murder". And no, killing isn't always immoral - the death penalty for instance can be a just act of killing.
Also, imagine thinking saying that disallowing sodomy is a denial of someone's humanity. No, denial of someone's urges (sexual or not) is not a denial of their humanity, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
@@d.rey5743 i appreciate the last bit but christians have tormented LGBTQ+ people for generations because of their scripture and teachings. Morality doesn't exist outside the human mind. Look at the volume of denominations of christianity is it because the morality of the bible is conducive to morality through empathy and objective to all cultures and people? You thinking that bugs are insignificant to people doesn't make it an objective fact that they should be killed, are they not also god's creatures? does god himself, the almighty not take care of even the bird in the tree?
In the first 40 minutes they've already said multiple times that they dont have an objective morality, it's just relative. So they dont ground morality on anything. They concede the debate
It’s also funny how they thought saying that God allows child grape (which he doesn’t) is immoral when they’ve already stated that morality is subjective😂😂😂
And yet they didn’t even realize they destroyed their own position with that/those statement(s).
Atheism hasnt been trounced this bad since Andrew made Dillamonkey click his heels and run home to his boyfriend.
😂
😭😭😭😭
Yes, let's have a system of morality that changes with society. Nothing bad ever comes from doing that.
Pray for these two atheists.
In their pride they have has completely relinquished their reasoning faculties.
I'll pray for you as well
“My worldview is grounded in apple sauce but it’s still better than yours”
- An atheist with an economics degree
you-can-wipe-your-arse-with-his-degree
Flowstate, how mad are you that your partner conceded the debate in the first 2 minutes?
L for flowstate for teaming um with negative nancy
@@straight_outta_jail That bald dude is Dollar Store Bam Bam Bigelow.
Any secularist listening to this debate must now re-evaluate their worldview. These Orthodox men just made the absurdity of the secular position obvious. It’s all relative man.
There is no debate here. They don't ground their morals on anything unchanging.
Neither side did.
@@FlowStateExcept under a Christian view, God is eternal and unchanging 🤡
@@FlowStateBro you didn’t even know that circumcision isn’t required in Christianity when you thought you had that gotcha. lol
Ps…secular heathen culture does circumcision too based on “muh medical science” 🤡
@@FlowState Any theistic position can ground a moral standard. Even Islam has a more grounded & coherent moral standard than you guys. You guys got exposed for the clowns you are.
@@FlowStatelol. lmao even.
About Grape thing.
Genesis 34:7
Literally says that it OUGHT NOT TO NE DONE. That’s verbatim in the RSV, NKJV, KJV, LSB. It’s paraphrased in the major other ones.
Tag in Deuteronomy 22:25-27
Genesis 24:58 for consent to marriage
Then literally every verse about love thy neighbour and etc.
Not to mention that orthodoxy is NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA.
They weren't even making that bad argument correctly. The way the argument goes is:
P1: Bible says grape bad
P2: God commands grape
C: Morality changes as God sees fit
But they were so scatterbrained that they started saying saying P1 isn't even in the Bible. If P2 were true and that were the case, then it would be consistent but just not in accord with what they like.
@@nousquest Turns out fidget spinner Bam Bam Bigelow isn't the Bible scholar he thought he was.
Great moderator . First time i see this. And great theistic arguments. TAG makes atheism and agnosticism like 12 year old worldviews
Why do these fools keep asking JB and DPH "can you?" This isn't about whether or not OC's can ground their morality but whether secularists can which they admitted they can't. It's all trends, all subjective, all arbitrary with them.
Then realizing they could never ground anything they just spent two hours saying "but gawd bad he wet duh wittle gurl get touched!!!". Not realizing they don't have a standard for that being wrong either.
As I predicted, the Redditors simply don’t understand the concept.
They can’t see that saying "you can ground morality in whatever" levels the playing field: my grounding is no better than yours and vice versa. Only thing is you prefer X, I prefer Y. That’s it.
The answer is no
Thanks for saving me 4 hours and 20 minutes of my life 😂
@@MatejXOXOnot only is it no but if you try to then you would fail miserably.
They conceded way before even the first 10 minute mark.
I love your facial expressions Jimbob.
This tells me that you are actually listening to your opponents because you are reacting with your face.
Good job man!
Caught the tail end of this. As much humour as there is to be found in these debate streams, a moments reflection & it's still funny but mostly in a sad way. Can't help but pity unbelievers, they're stuck in an infinitely replicating autistic fever dream. These horrendously misshapen ways of thinking that is being presented by them all these debates isn't only going to be compartmentalized to what we see when they speak of beliefs surrounding morals & logic. It extends to their attitudes in *all* areas of their life. If they have even a smidge of self awareness, how miserable must that be? Imagine being so worthless? That is *extremely* funny to think about.
I would ask GE, “is dishonesty objectively good”? He will have to grant it is.
DPH getting the laugh from everyone at 1:24:52 is mint
Plus the suit. Let's go
W JB and DPH! Well done!
They can have an issue with the Orthodox Christian perspective on morality and ethics, whatever. But to not realize their own moral systems are completely flawed is hilarious. And they admit it's flawed.
Admitting it would necessitate realizing it.
Masterfully done. Pitting the knowledge gained from all those chats with FlowState versus the worldview gleaned from your prep-work on the other guy.
The house of cards they didn't even build themselves has crumbled under the weight of their own internal conflict.
I do think the debate turned succinctly however, shortly before that, with DPH's confident disembowelment of GE's distortion of Biblical Numbers.
The remainder was just a thrashing.
A celebrated victory for the troops, too bad the spoils of the battle will just be the tears of two more vindictive, whiny atheists.
The answer is so obviously no.
Do you think the two atheists just don’t understand what grounding means. That is it needs be something universal and objective.
Or they understand it but don’t want to concede out of pride - but if that’s the case then why agree to the debate?
I think ultimately most atheists just don't understand what it means to ground something.
They think just stating the thing or saying they have the thing is grounding.
“Morality is subjective, but I still have a better justification for morality than you Christians”🤡🤡🤡
Grounding: The act, method, or process of laying a groundwork or foundation.
Elementary instruction; instruction in the basic concepts of a topic or skill.
No, groundings don't need to be universal or objective. Next.
@FlowState "the foundation can be totally fluid, ambiguous, mobile, and ever changing. That's a foundation" 🤣🤣
@@joeyn985 i understand that the religious argument collapses entirely without a) necessitating a grounding be universal & permanent, and b) trying to insist that the church meets that criteria... unfortunately, a) isn't required and b) isn't true anyway. Take 2 L's and do not pass go.
Good job Jim Bob.. amazing these atheists hate God so much that will grasp at anything the push Him away.. You and DPH represented our side well as always
> we dont need God for morality
> morality is subjective
> i'm better than the abstract notion of absolute perfection
GE was literally talking and playing with a fidget spinner while Jimbob was presenting his opening statement 😂
And speaking to others in the room on camera during the debate. As far as I'm concerned this is a formal debate and conversing with others that aren't participating in the debate is bad form.
@@BrandonTheInquirerhe clearly gave up right there. 100% didn’t understand anything
he-is-legally-and-medically-r3tarded.....what-do-you-expect-from-that-dufus?!
Literally grown children. Adults with elementary school level cognition.
@@OrthodoxJoker "Gave up" not having anything to start with, more accurately
Bro in the top left wishes he was Andrew Wilson
Flowstate is a meathead. I'm not exactly sure how he's made it on to panels with the likes of Andrew Wilson and JimBob. It may be because Tomato is being charitable, but still.
@@BrandonTheInquirer tweaker
Jay Dyer would eat him for lunch
Always enjoy Jimbob & DPH together in the debate saddle.
Just stopping in to check this debate out. Finished watching Tim Bool debate Andrew on Philo/theology. Beany Man isn't equipped for debate. Hope this is a good show.
1. andrew: there are no rights
2. tim: don´t take my rights away
3. repeat
sprinkle on it the nasaly comments of the most annoying girl they could find, and you have a show
We need more of this
2:02:39
He acted like a true godless moral relativist. Allowed his wife to talk shit but not allowed Jimbob to do the same. I'm really sad for his kids.
good job JB
I almost feel bad for Flowstate. His "partner" is such an awful debating. I don't think the dude could hold a conversation. Such a whiny liar.
1:36:30
"WE ALL KNOW IT"
Thats the dumbest shit that was said in the debate. Nothing can top that.
W JB DPH🔥
GE shouldn't have been on this stream. Dude has absolutely no clue what grounding even is and then refers to a theist as to why God doesn't ground morality.
"Fools say to themselves, "There is no God." They are corrupt and commit evil deeds; not one of them practices what is good."
-Psalms 14:1 ISV
Sandy hasn't changed one bit. Still misunderstanding everything and disagreeing just to disagree. Typical
Insufferable
Flow state is so stupid
Idk who’s more stupider flow or GE
Both these guys IQ's combined are barely hitting double digits.
1:22:25 onwards is a TRAINWRECK for guys on the left.
20:07 “It’s still grounding even if you don’t wanna admit it’s grounding”
Hashtag high tier apologetics
Guess imma have to view twice… 1st time for the chat, 2nd time for debate HAHAHAH this chat is always makin me laf. Ps: truthfully watching debate 1st. Also, man the arrogance of engineers. Spent some years during and after highschool in mechanical engineering dept for aerospace components. Myself included, tho to a lesser degree (and have since recovered) the god-complex makes you wanna vomit. FlowState didnt vibe like that, and props to him cuz even tho I disagree w/ him on this topic, I could hangout w him 100%. He’s probably not dckhead father either. Finally, DPH and JB r legends, as demo’d here.
Christian side: "Your morality lacks any grounding."
Atheist: "So does yours."
This concedes the debate, while also being a "Tu quoque" fallacy.
Joe cools laugh is like fingernails on the chalkboard of my brain.
1:32:08
DPH tells him he's obsessed with children and GE nods like an absolute psycho.
lol Godless Engineer. What a cringey name. You know you're in for some hot reddit takes with a name like that.
I'd like for Jimbob to source the definition of grounding in philosophy
Philosophy consists of several branches, metaphysical grounding and epistemic grounding may not be written the same way .
The question isn’t whether or not a source can be produced. The question is, did the oppponents know what is meant by grounding
@@MadebyJimbob that's not what I requested. It certainly does matter if a source can be produced. Otherwise if I were in a debate with you I would just assert something different.
Better to defend Orthodoxy having no relationship with Christ, than to wax utilitarian or naturalist.
The latter brought us Marx, the former brought us saints, prophets, and men & women whom have given fully of themselves (even their own lives) for the good of us as a species.
Orthodoxy is built upon the cornerstone of Jesus, and upon that rock is the wisdom and tireless efforts of His beloved apostles, who sacrificed many opportunities for blind power in favor of guiding mankind out of darkness and I to a better world where crime and sin, fully defined, could be reduced, all the better for ethics and virtues to rise among our traits to be the greatest elements of our character.
Even if you are not a believer, what more beautiful though is there than God, so loving his flawed and wicked creations, that he would make Himself mortal, to walk as we do, and then suffer profoundly for love of us, deserving only misery due our degeneracy, and die for our salvation and eternal life?
Who will you ever know in life that would love you nearly as much as that? What greater love could exist?
That love is our best and greatest hope for building a world where we can come to a better life, more free from our dark traits, and instinctual cruelties, to embrace a future so bright we can't behold it even through welding goggles.
This is why, as a heathen, I would wish for a Christian-Orthodox led society. It's the best hope for living in hope.
Not even a half hour in and these guys unwittingly defeat their own position and when asked about an objective “truth of reality” he appeals to opinions about what occurs in his fake pseudoscience cosmology.
Oufffffff 😂🤦♂️
Furthermore, I’d love for Mr Heathen Bible scholar to give one citation in the Bible where God condones or commands any child SA.
In fact, throughout the scripture God condemns ALL sexual immorality of ANY kind persistently and consistently. Just because these things occur in the scriptures (because the Bible is historical), and usually by pagan heathens like Bam Bam Bigelow’s retarded twin brother, doesn’t logically follow that he condones or affirms it.
Furthermore, I’d love for Mr Heathen Bible Scholar to give one citation where God affirms, condones or commands child SA. In fact, if these guys had even a cursory knowledge of the Bible they would know God persistently and consistently condemns ALL forms of sexual immorality. Just because some people in Scripture committed such an act doesn’t mean God approved, condoned or commanded it. And in Scripture, the people who would engage in such acts were usually always the pagan/secular heathens like this Dollar Tree Bam Bam Bigelow.
2:18:14 when flowstate holds up a lighter and says we would know it's not the key to his car, that's not actually true. If I, as a talented engineer, made my car start by needing a lighter, then that would be the key to my car. I get to decide how to construct mechanisms, and lighters aren't some special category of things that can't be used as another thing. All it would take is a liar to assert a lighter cannot start a car, and a believer believing him, it's only subjective, lighters aren't objectively only usable as a lighter.
All he did was leverage human assumption about lighters, he used hidden premises.
@@jesterprivilege I was tempted to push back on that in real time, being that if you gave a lighter to a Papua New Guinea tribe they may not know what it was at all.
@@MadebyJimbob @MadebyJimbob that's true. My mind went to immediately design a mechanism that would allow me to start a car or unlock one, with that shape. I think it's important to not let these people push hidden premises. It's actually a topic I want to expand on. If you have a panel stream, I have a theory on a tag-like argument that describes deceptions mechanics, or something like that.
@@MadebyJimbob mechanics of prattle, rather. I tried to describe it some months back, but it's not as easy to grasp as a simple fallacy, but it may use them. As someone who has used deception, and hearing deceptive people, I am quite certain that "prattle" is either well thought out, or learned behavior that comes easier, but is certainly not void of meaning. I have been trying to deconstruct this prattle stuff.
Not only do they believe morality is subjective but they also believe that “grounding” is subjective 😂 why did they even show up?
JimBob is a top tier debater
I feel like they were trying to look at free will through a linear predetermined perspective, and that caused the disconnect. If God is all-knowing and free will exists, God doesn't just know every step before we make it,he knows every outcome to every choice put before us and spectates as we use free will to navigate those decisions/choices. So if I choose to put on the blue tie over the red tie, I'm not fooling God, I'm making a decision in regards to a multiple number of choices that were put before me. God knows those decisions, not because he pre determined them, but because he isn't confined by the laws of time and space.
@jimbob, do I have permission to upload clips from this? Thanks
If you dont believe things are objectively tasty, then how do you ground your taste?
Do you follow divine command theory?
1:14:34 “you and your mum” woulda been my retort
Flowstate's whole platform here is "No You" haha
These are edgy jr high kids with a rebellious weed smoking college sibling giving them these arguments
ya´lls just can´t into proper usage of noise
These atheists are begging the question. “Muh humanism bro!”
These guys have no desire to debate the topic they just have a bone to pick with Christianity
I still remember how John Maddox destroyed GE and make fun of his low, extremely low knowledge
Schrodingers atheist. of course.
Nice, you reworded the debate to suit your needs. The debate was "Secularism vs Christianity: Can we ground morality without God?" Thus you have a burden as well. If neither of you fulfill that burden, then you both lose. You keep avoiding your burden.
What's the burden? God grounds morality because the universe is created to reflect God, and our goodness is thereby determined by how well we reflect him.
@@joshuaparsons887 That's only if God exists. They would have to defend how God exists. Their burden would be: "No, we cannot ground morality without God." But if they don't demonstrate a God actually exists it's no better than claiming you cannot ground morality without Gandalf. A ground has to actually exist.
@@theuncarvedblock6565 alright, I'll have a go. Does knowledge exist, from your point of view?
@joshuaparsons887 that's not the topic. But, of course. It's a term just like fiction is a term.
@@theuncarvedblock6565 if you consider that every aspect of philosophy is linked to every other aspect then it's perfectly on topic.
Regardless, for knowledge to exist, multiple preconditions are required. One simple example is that we can come to truth through logic and reasoning. Do you affirm this to be the case, and how do you account for this?
What's the point of creating all the souls that won't make it to heaven. If God knows even before he creates them, why create the ones he knows will fail?
If you're ultimately asking "why did God create the universe", the ultimate answer is "we don't know".
But we do know that all serve to glorify God. Us who worship Him glorify God in His love and mercy, and those who reject God glorify Him in his justice and righteousness.
I'm asking what's the point of creating the souls that will go to the lake if he already knows that they will even before he creates them. I'm not asking about the whole universe
@PigSnaketheDestroyer I understood your question and I gave you the answer. I'm not gonna copy paste it again lol
@@PigSnaketheDestroyerthat’s Calvinism
If you watch a movie and you know what happens, are you in charge of the characters choices?
but, yes, as a person on the "side" of GE, he did poorly. It's not a debate he should have participated in. Perhaps you can debate him on whether Jesus existed or not. And it has to be the Jesus you believe existed, not some unknown guy that started a movement.
I couldn't think of a more boring debate.