Provoked - Debate with Atheist
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лис 2024
- Tune into our great conversational debate we had with Marc Auger. We lovingly challenged Marc to make sense of his worldview and account for those necessary realities that make knowledge possible.
Tell us how you think it went.
You can get more at apologiastudios.... Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video. #ApologiaStudios
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy. In our Academy you can take a courses on Christian apologetics and much more.
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Twitter: ap...
Instagram: www.instagram....
A good rebuttal to the “ what color do you see?” analogy would be yes it true that one person sees it as blue and the other person sees it as gray. That much is true but even though they both see a different color the object is actually only one color. The reason one person sees it as the incorrect color is due to a defect with the eye. And that is how our souls are apart from God’s grace. You can see God right in front of you but call it a chain of random chemical reactions and that’s due to the defect of sin in that person.
Yea and It usually points to a defect and we can investigate and we find the defect.
Exactly what scripture says and over and over we see it in testimonies. I asked Jesus into my heart to be Lord of my life I totally saw through spiritual eyes for the first time. Trees looked different paintings everything! But mostly i noticed love for others peace and joy. Then of course the bible came to life the words jumped off the page. So once I was blind but now I see sums it up perfectly. Come on everyone ! Climb board the peace train❤👑🦁🙏
In that analogy, sin is the genetic defect that causes us to see an objective reality as something it isn’t. Sure, it would be “gray” through unregenerated eyes and that is a subjective reality, but that has nothing to do with the objective reality.
I thought God makes no mistakes
@@phillyspecial1393 he doesnt. We as humans do and we are given our free will.God allows us to choose because without choice and free will we cannot freely love
We are in a fallen state due to the fall of adam and eve
We as humans took from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so we brought that evil sin death sickness etc all evil onto ourselves. That is why we need Jesus to go to heaven. In our fallen state we automatically go to hell.religion has not taught the gospel correctly there is so much confusion. Its about Jesus Christ not about us trying to be good. We cannot! We are not capable. ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The ONLY way is repent and trust JESUS CHRIST for our salvation by grace through our faith in Him.
It's really wild to see ppl descend into absurdity. I'm still amazed when I see it.
Yes, it is; have You ever seen it in YourSelf?)
let Us not be Pure in Our Own Eyes!!-)
Presuppositional apologetics is the absurdity. That's why it's not taken seriously.
As soon as I heard him say "that's their moral viewpoint" when they were talking about child rape, I immediately thought of Romans 1: 18-20. They are purposely suppressing the obvious truth, everyone knows that rape is evil and to just sum it up and say "well that's in their culture so in their eyes it's ok and I don't have a right to tell them differently" is absolutely absurd. Also when he said at the end that he's not sure if 1 + 1 = 2, complete madness.
@@chrisjoseph4088 one of these philosophies can affirm that 1+1=2. One cannot.
Just because something exists, doesn't mean God created it.
God is good and He defines what is good. Evil/Sin is the absence of God/goodness. God doesn't create evil or sin.
God created order. Chaos is the absence of order. God didn't create chaos.
God created light. Darkness is the absence of light. God didn't create darkness.
God is the author of Truth. Lies are the absence of truth. God didn't create lies.
I think if you want to focus more on debates, you really need mediation so that the talk-time between the two views is better spaced and represented. Also don't have 2vs1.
I am friends with people who I don’t know fully, doesn’t mean they’re unknowns to me.
Right. And that's true for every relationship anyone has.
You’re the neighbor of the serial killer that says, “he was always so nice and kept to himself, I never would have guessed he could be capable….” That’s because the people you don’t know fully are actually unknown to you.
It does mean there are unknowns to you, and those unknowns could change everything. You don't know.
I agree, partly, with the idea that associating flat earth theory with the Bible may lead an inquiring mind away. They may quickly dismiss everything that a flat earth Bible believer may say just on the grounds that flat earth seems preposterous, so the Bible must be too.
At the same time doesn't walking on water seem far fetched? Or a six day creation? Or the parting of the Red Sea? I believe those things happened as the Bible records them as a believing Christian, with all my heart. But those ideas and events may also lead the non believer quickly away from His truth upon hearing about them.
Thing is though, if you follow flat earth channels you will see a lot of times that the search for truth as to whether we live on a spinning ball or not actually brings a lot of folks to Christianity. They are led to Christ because they start looking for answers in His Word, and by doing so are led to Him and then repentance and belief.
Is it flat? Idk. Personally, I've come to the the conclusion that I don't care, take whatever path you need to to get on His Way which is belief in Jesus, who is the Way, Truth and Life. I'm just looking forward to the Kingdom at the end of the road.
Sidenote. When proving the earth is round, please attempt to do so without involving NASA or anything they have ever produced. I dare ya. :).
It would be wise for these folks to debate a competent flat earth Christian believer instead of the typical Ray Comfort/"dr" Danny Faulkner and Robert Carter type of "debate".. They always look for the layman vs the "dr" type of debate... and they always look for newbie flat earthers instead of competent seasoned Christian flat earthers... I hope Apologia will do as they say and respect Christian flat earthers because they are image bearers of God the same way they respect atheists they debate.we'll see if they act like they have in the past toward Christian flat earthers or if they start showing them the same respect they give Armenians, agnostics , Mormons and atheists.. but I have an all to familiar feeling that they won't.
Well said!
Is the earth flat? No. We have Global Positioning Satellites that use our knowledge of the globe in order to accurately position themselves. The algorithms are based on the world being a sphere, and what do you know! It's beyond question as to whether it's flat.
As for whether or not a non-believer would walk away hearing that Christ walked on water, or the parting of the Red Sea. I don't think that is relevant for this reason: No true Christian has come to God because of the arguments for the validity of miracles. We repent because God opens our eyes when we hear the Gospel (which is the power of God unto salvation). The Gospel is the catalyst for whether a person turns or not. Once you connect with God and realise that he's real, accessible and trustworthy, everything else falls in to place.
"“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, so that we may follow all the words of this Law."- Deut. 29:29
I love Apologia Studios. Was led to the truth of the doctrines of Grace through this ministry. I am now a full-throated Calvinist. I’m also a “flat earther” or at least a spherical earth denier. The Bible says to TEST all things and to hold fast that which is good (true). It doesn’t say “take man’s word for it without substantiation and then defend that to the death”. The heliocentric, spherical earth model leaves too many questions unanswered. One side of the debate is “testing” the (heliocentric spherical earth) theory. The other side is pointing and laughing at them....can you allow YOUR own traditions and presuppositions to be challenged?
Amen, me too
If you had tested all things you’d deny the flat earth, since it is the spherical model which ACCOUNTS for things such as eclipses and day and night and seasons, but the flat model has NO WAY of even TESTING those things. The tests that HAVE been performed for the flat earth have FAILED.
@@mrhyde7600
The spherical earth model accounts for far less:
Selenelions
Crepuscular rays
The Bedford Level Experiment
The structure revealed by the CMB
The Michelson-Morely Experiment
How water can seek level on or hold to a spinning convex surface
How an unenclosed pressurized system can exist in a vacuum
How photos at 121,000 feet of altitude can possibly show zero curvature
Why there aren’t any “non-photoshopped” images of earth from space
How is the Joshua Nowicki photo even possible (among others)
Etc...
I was taught the same thing you and everyone else was by a government-funded public school system. We all just accepted it. FErs are the only ones testing anything regarding the shape and nature of the earth. Everyone else has just ACCEPTED it. It goes all the way back to Eratosthenes who didn’t prove the earth was a sphere, he assumed it. Assumption is bad science.
@@theeclecticcollective8279 At only a cursory glance, the few that I actually recognized I know have already been dealt with thoroughly. The Michaelson morely experiment had nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it was whether or not the ether existed. So trying to use that to show the shape of the earth is like trying to use your wrist watch to spread peanut butter and jelly.
A pressurized system can exist in a vacuum because of gravity. I’m sure you’re laughing at that word right now, but it is already something you can experience in your real life if you climb a mountain. Do you know why? Because the air pressure decreases the higher you get. It gets more difficult to breathe and for some reason there is snow on the top of a mountain in the summer. How does that happen? Because the higher you get the lower the air pressure gets, and what happens if you continue to go higher and the air pressure continues to decrease? Oh my God, you’re out of vacuum. How does that happen without a container? It’s the artificial container of gravity, and it is expressed in the gradient of air pressure.
Now why don’t you try predicting an eclipse like a spherical model does. Why don’t you try even attempting to explain day and night and seasons concurrently on the same model? Because you can’t. Because first of all, you have no model of reality that accounts for these things. Even if the spherical model is incorrect, which it is not, you would need something better in order to replace it. And you don’t have something better. You have a list of experiments that have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Cosmic microwave background?! Guess what that has nothing to do with? The shape of the earth!
Again, screw doing your own research, do your own work and show those very few simple things that are easily accounted for and demonstrated by the spherical model.
@@theeclecticcollective8279 but really, since this video is about the existence of a God, we could go that direction as well. It might do you some good to be relieved of the burden of that fable, because that may in turn allow you to return to sanity regarding the shape of the earth, since you admit that your mind has been warped by what the Bible says about the shape of the earth.
Tell me this: how can you tell the difference between your God and the other gods proposed by other religions? Better yet, which Christian denomination is correct? They can’t all be correct, because they in fact represent different gods. The same God did not both create the universe 6000 years ago and 13.8 billion years ago. And so on and so on with the myriad of diverse and mutually exclusive Christian teachings. How can you begin to show the reality of something that has zero physical attributes?
Get Jeff in there 😁
Again now 1:03:30 he uses the example that if he holds up 3 fingers and a camera from one of the angles captures an angle that makes it look as if he’s sticking up the middle finger. It then shows that diversity of different world views. But what he didn’t catch is that even though one view seen it as him sticking up the middle finger the other angle had the TRUE perspective of the 3 fingers. So there are many FALSE views and perspectives but there is that ONE TRUTH in which explains reality but many are looking at the wrong angle of reality. The TRUTH is the true perspective and explanation of reality is GOD. There are so many flaws in the atheists argument
Athiests do not believe in objective truth
@@robertataft3836 so is it Subjective or Objectively truth that there is no Objective truth? Because if it’s subjectively true then its only true for you. But if its objectively true its true for everyone. But if you subjectively claim that there are no objective truths, than that truth is only true for you, and if its only true for you then its not true for anyone else, so how could that claim be true for anyone if its a subjective truth. And if you say its true that there are only subjective truth, then that begs the question. Is that truth Objective or Subjective?
@@christrighteousministries5932 objective truth is just that objective
@@robertataft3836 you didn’t answer my question, you made a claim and now im asking you is that True for everyone or just true for you? Or maybe I’m misunderstood, either you made a claim or I’m mistaking and you were just stating that atheist have a messed up belief system. Help me understand you
@@christrighteousministries5932 you are just running around in circles and not asking a question
I think he's not asking about the origin of sin from the atheist perspective, but asking about the origin of sin from the christian perspective.
You're right. The Christians were playing dumb.
There are so many things I want to say to Marc; one being that to sin is to miss the mark of God's perfect character. It's not something that's created. Darkness is the absence of light.
Does Marc have a wife? A parent? A child? If so, does he know absolutely everything about them? Does he have perfect knowledge of their character and actions? Of course not, but it would be foolish to then conclude that he doesn't know them, or that they are "unknowns."
I find it perfectly reasonable for a father to say there are unknowns about his son.
He went from "Yeah man keep the 3 thousand, it yours" to "I don't think I wanna help that woman getting beat up" So he sees more sanctity in giving someone 3 grand than saving a life of a woman?
Giving money is much easier than to potentially sacrifice yourself for another.
Re-watch. He didn't say "he" wouldn't help, quite the opposite.
You know when an atheist starts asking leading questions because he thinks he is setting you up for a devastating blow, but then he misses horrobly because he hasn't taken the time to study his opponent's actual positions. That was how I felt during the whole "God created sin" bit.
The opponents position is to assume an unknown, God, controls everything, without providing any evidence that it's even possible, let alone the most likely. The 2 apologists were in way above their heads. The "Atheist" knew more about the bible than they did.
But the fact is, God did create sin - IF Your God is all knowing and all powerful. If it has these two attributes then this universe is only a script that God wrote and is watching the movie play out. There are no accidents there is no free will.
@@mrhyde7600 you have no idea what sin is lol, sin is basically opposing all of Jesus teachings, god created beings who CAN sin. You should read the Bible
@@mrhyde7600 and you have an assumption that God WOULD stop evil, an assumption off what standard and basis? What is this hidden standard and some how proves "god doesn't exist because evil exists" you are assuming god wouldn't have a moral REASON to let this occur. Which is a mindless assumption
@@Isaac_619_ First of all, don’t assume you think you know what I know, because that makes you look foolish right out the gate. Of course I know what sin is, a sin is a breaking of God‘s law. Pretty simple.
But refer back to my qualifiers, that if God is all knowing and all powerful, because that is crucial, and part of the big “IF” statement I made. Now watch carefully, I don’t want to lose you: if God has these two attributes, then whatever happens on earth is a direct result of the plan he made. It is a plan because he configured and arranged the dominoes and knew in advance how they would hit and fall. Meaning, he designed our nature‘s, so if our nature is to be sinful it’s due to his design, if our tendency is to break the law of God, it’s because he created that tendency in us. And he knew in advance who would break his rules and who would obey. Extrapolate that and we can say with confidence that God created humanity with the intent of sending the majority of them to hell forever. If God has those two attributes, this conclusion is inescapable.
But please don’t begin a conversation with me telling me what I know, because you are likely wrong. Don’t assume I have not read the Bible, I am willing to bet money I know the Bible better than you do. If you feel I am incorrect on that, then I would love to engage in conversation.
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
1 Corinthians 1:18
Thanks for mocking the unbeliever. Very christian of you.
@@karz12 As an unbeliever, is the message of the cross wisdom to you?
Or is it foolishness/folly?
@@Hez0 it's social cultural relativism. Like repunzel or johnny appleseed. Depends on the culture / country / race / family you grew up in. It's no more true than saying being american is more true than being japanese.
@@karz12 You're an unbeliever. I'm wondering what you, as an unbeliever, think of the message of the cross.
Do you see it as wisdom?
Or do you see it as foolishness?
@@Hez0 1. First, of all you an atheist as well. There are hundreds of gods you don't believe in.
2. Is it foolish or wise to be born in america?
Christian worldview: feet planted firmly on The Rock.
Atheistic worldview: feet planted firmly in the air and waving around aimlessly, and, often, angrily.
Mark's a nice guy. Thanks for coming on the show Mark! I hope you turn to Christ in repentance and faith! Come again!
Rob Skiba Testing the Globe- part 2: The Absurdity of Belief
To would be the perfect Christian biblical cosmologist to be the guest and explain biblical creation. All of the flat earth representation made so far is not flat earth theory.
@@Djcanhandleit amen!
I am stunned by the wild inconsistencies with this atheist. He will do anything he can to obfuscate any point he gets cornered on
Wow, there are real people out there that think like this. I know that but to hear it spoken so seriously is disturbing everytime.
First- God Bless You Guys! I’ll see you all in Heaven. His eternal Kingdom!!!!!
This was in no way a debate.It was a monologue by the guy in the middle.He spoke more than the other two combined.
The fact that there is any concept at all of "right and wrong"- whether subjectively or objectively- proves that there is in fact a God.
Correct.
How so? I do not recognize this god you've mentioned and I can determine what is right and wrong. In fact, I am the _sole_ arbiter of my morality.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Do you think it was wrong of the Nazis to do as they did?
@@souzajustin19d Could you be any more vague? I am assuming you mean the particular Nazis that committed genocide on innocent civilians. YES, I determine those particular Nazis were acting immorally.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Then morality is not of your self, but a standard beyond your self. Much like logic is an objective thing beyond us, morality being the same an immaterial thing that does exist.
"to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 26)" "in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth (2 Tim 2:25)" Praise our awesome Triune God.
Blue is not gray, no matter what "defect" some have. Perception ist not reality.
The (full film) "How to answer the fool" explains presupposition better; or less offending: "Ultimate Proof for Creation/God's Existence | Presuppositional Apologetics | Dr. Jason Lisle".
I would disagree. Seeing the color blue or gray are actually subjective experiences in the mind. There is no "blue" or "gray" experience racing thru space into your eye. The only fact is electromagnetic waves at a particular wavelength. Experiencing the sight of a color is a result of perception. It is an interaction between light, eyes, and brains.
Yes, God created everything. He is ALL Powerful and can use his power in any way He chooses to bring Him glory. It’s when people choose to use His power for deceitful means that it becomes sin, by the one who uses His creations for sin.
Empty words
This guy is confused...his argument is self defeating...there is subjective truth so therefore what I say is true? ....If truth is subjective how can we even trust what you say because there isn’t any objective truth...morality? The samething... there is no foundation for him to stand on...
Well, actually, if I experience something within reality (depends on what one means by reality) then it’s real. It’s true...
Not supporting his atheistic position, just supporting his experience as true
@@gregorymoats4007
Experiencing something in reality is an objective matter. It can be proven true.
@@levibaer18 yes, it’s proven true to me...
@@gregorymoats4007 I appreciate the response...it sounds like that will still be subjective truth...that’s where i see the issue...with subjective truth we have no gauge to determine true and false... therefore everything is at irrelevant because what’s true for you might not be true for me so who is ever false?...the only way to have a gauge is to have ultimate truth...the question then is who sets that ultimate truth?...
@@gregorymoats4007
Is WW2 a subjective reality, or was it objective? Not everyone experienced it.
Best explanation of 1:05:33 I think is that it is still by our presuppositions that we even attempt to approach the understanding of these things in the first place. The driving force toward the role-playing is unbelief regardless of how well it is played.
Thank God for the work you put in. Very helpful video for a doubting Thomas.
I'm actually going to be teaching apologetics at my church this summer so, thanks to the women who made the way for us. Also ex Army, Small Arms Repairer 91F.
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. 5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
I spent 7 years in the Marine Corps. As well. I love and follow Jesus. I’m still in the beginning but now I’m interested to see how he says what he saw lead him to his worldview.
This is starting to get pretty good. I don't know how y'all stay so calm
Bro I was about to switch off and the guy said God created sin .... now I’m staying for the end
Morality is objective. Remember God's law never changes. Just read the old testament. Oh wait....
It’s always strange to me that people can presuppose a God in order to justify logic and reason, but instantly dismiss people who skip god and simply make presuppositions about the justification for using logic and reason. Adding a god to the process is getting to logic with extra steps.
I agree, God adds nothing at all to the epistemological question (it actually only complicates things). I think it's just too tempting a way to drag the whole Bible into the presupposition right along with the logic. It makes no sense, but that's the idea.
Nice guy. But perfect example of rejecting God equals absurdity.
God didn't CREATE sin. There is not a "ball of evil" somewhere. Sin is a state of disordered love, disordered will. Sin was a necessary possibility in a universe peopled with creatures of free will. God did not create robots.
Did God create love?
He doesn't understand his own worldview
@Tromso Prefect what 'seems darker' has no bearing on what is true or false
@Tromso Prefect We don’t determine truth by what makes us feel better.
@@theocratickingdom30 but it doesn't really make u feel good to know one lived and died in sin but didn't get the punishment he deserved..I mean it may be so for the sinner..but..
I agree..none understands the speed the earth "moves"!if u can wrap your head around that number..and then read in scripture it cannot be moved..but u still believe it to "move" then u r not a believer of the Word.
More debates from you guys would be awesome
Don't skip the ads. They spend their money in the right place
Maybe next time put time stamps with your videos. 20+ mimutes before conversation gets started! hahaha. Love you guys tho.
If I saw someone being beaten, my reason for wanting to intervein would be, as a HUMAN, I have EMPATHY, which means I can imagine what it would be like if the same was happening to ME, I would hope someone would step in and help me, that's a big reason I'd want to do the same for anyone else. As humans we have the ability to empathize with the suffering of others, I dunno why a God is necessary for that
I agree God is not necessary for that. What he is necessary for is ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE morality.... which is itself unnecessary, but pre-sups seem to really need it to be.
My middle son was a grunt. It takes a special man to be a grunt....lol
You going on Modern-Day Debate too?
I don’t think there are enough women apologists either and would love to see more of them!
Lets say that woman was your wife, your mom or your daughter, would you like for someone to help her?
I know one thing ..once I was blind..and now I see.
Need to strengthen your faith? Talk to an atheist
Thank you for faithfully declaring God's truth!
We as humans dont need absolute certainties. People make hundreds of small choices everyday without being a 100 % sure of the outcome. Millions of people take their cars to work every day for example without knowing for sure that they wont be in a car accident. Why? Because they have made a calculation in their head that there is a small risk that they will have an accident but the risk is too small to not take the car to work. They are not 100 % sure of it, but maybe 95 % sure and that is good enough. Thats how humans work. On probabilities. Not on absolute certainties.
I think the atheist did a much better job at communicating their reasons even with only 1/50th the talking time and had a better foundation because of it. Especially when the theist admits they won't give evidence and instead give god of the gaps arguments. To date I have not heard any good evidence for a god but I'll keep watching these debates I guess.
I'm just happy the host is a true moderator. Since said host says it is not true.
At least he was honest - atheism provides no standard of morality.
No it doesn't, but it certainly doesn't preclude it.
Religious people keep saying the craziest stuff. You guys don't know anything. You are just pretending.
Right off the handle you are saying that the science is infallible and that the scripture can be misrepresented....... since we are all Christians let’s start with what the Bible actually says, then approach the science.
46:33: It's not a question of what we do, it's what SHOULD we do.
Good luck defending the "ball" that "moves" with the word of Truth..isn't it written that earth is founded and immovable!?haven't u read that wether u believe it or not,research it!?
Hopefully you'll get the right man to debate about the earth .
This conversation went off the rails after the Christians failed to correct the godless view of sin and instead seemed to get caught flat footed by having an internal critique done by the godless.
The erroneous view of sin could have been corrected which would have been the perfect Segway for the Gospel.
Idk if the Christians are not well studied on the topic of God being the creator of everything but not the author of sin but it sure seemed that way. Up until that point the Christians were doing well at exposing the absurdity of the godless worldview. Not sure what happened there but the Christians were completely on the defensive and not doing well after that.
I concur, I even had to pause the video for myself to spell out what God has revealed to us about sin and it's nature. This is something we want to keep in mind. The Almighty gave us the freedom & choice to do that which is best for us & pleasing to him (love his commands & obey) or to separate ourselves from him willingly by denying & disobeying Him. When it's all said and done we will only be able to account for ourselves.
I am very intrigued to know which flat earther they will be debating, I really hope Rob Skiba or Robbie Davidson!!
Or Eric Dubay.
I would like to see them interview David Beverly AKA Jesus freak computer geek .
I love how they just play dumb about his "God creating sin" point and then devolve into "you can't understand".
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. 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.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. 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.
7. 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._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_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.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered 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 existence of a 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 any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Hi there. I can immediately recognize two issues. First, the issue with everything you wrote and all your "reasons" are assuming too much. You are presupposing too many things, and when you engage in a conversation, you are start from an invalid starting point. Second, you give lots of autobiographical details, which are irrelevant to an argument or proof.
So firstly, What is your justification for induction in the atheist worldview? How would you answer David Hume (later echoed by Russell and Quine). The atheist (same as empiricist / materialist / skeptic) paradigm is ad hoc, unjustified, and incoherent per the most notable skeptics / atheists, so what would your reply be since most scholarly atheists acknowledge this question above?
@@TommyGunzzz Thaks for replying. You have stated quite a bit in your response and I would like to address you assertion one at a time.
You have stared that I am "assuming too much" and "presupposing too many things", yet you didn't explain what such assumptions or presuppositions were made. Can you provide such an explanation with an example now?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Hi there, I cant guarantee a timely response if we are going to go back and forth one point at time (a lot of time), but we can try and see how far we get.
We can answer the first part about your assumptions by addressing the later part about David Hume. He’s probably the most famous skeptic atheist and he admits that atheism (Empiricism) is unjustifiable, and that atheists should give up philosophy and just focus on psychology. He provided a famous challenge that has never been answered, just regurgitated by later atheists (Quine, Russell) to justify induction. Can you justify induction from an atheist paradigm? Essentially, every transcendental category must be assumed by the atheist (materialist, empiricist, nominalist, etc) and not proven or justified. The laws of logic, uniformity in nature (assuming the future will be like the past), universals vs particulars, a 1:1 correspondence to the outside world (How do you know your sense data is accurately interpreting the outside world, assuming you believe in an outside world..)? etc. What is the justification for these within an atheist paradigm? And to be consistent, remember only matter exists, so appealing to anything not physical matter is borrowing capital from the Christian paradigm (that is invariant, universal, transcendent realities/things)
Thanks,
@@TommyGunzzz WTF?!? I asked you a question. You did even address it. Here it is again:
You have stared that I am "assuming too much" and "presupposing too many things", yet you didn't explain what such assumptions or presuppositions I have made. Can you provide such an explanation with an example now?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Hi there. I 100% addressed it, you might need to re-read my post. How do you justify induction (You are making this assumption along with all the other things i listed)? I then elaborated on it to clarify the bigger problem i personally think you werent aware of in your worldview. Is that clear?
1:00:00 he is trying to argue that since God created everything he created also Sin and evil which doesn’t line up. Because God created Man with free will, and MAN used there free will to commit what is a absence of Good, which is called evil. Like the absence of Light is darkness. There could be sunshine without shadows but there cant be shadows without sunshine.
Also i would ask him then for his argument that if God created a man and gave him a free choice to do and create anything he wants to and thinks of and he creates a Tesla does that mean God created that Tesla? Or the Man with the ability to do so? Obviously the MAN created that Tesla using his free will given to him. He freely chose to create a Tesla.
@@justindykes8676 did you use free will to say that?
And can you prove your claim and provide evidence?
There are many many years of Christian tradition answering the theodicy (the problem of evil/sin) and I think the main reason that Zac didn't want to address it is because it is an entirely different topic and a long one to answer.
I don't think that the Free Will argument is necessary or even a very good answer to the problem. When God creates man, he knows everything that man will do before creating him, so unless you want to invoke open theism or Molinism (middle knowledge/parallel worlds) that deny omniscience, the Free Will advocate must approach the theodicy in the exact same way as the calvinist. What we are saying when we say that God is not the author of sin is not that sin was not known by God at creation, or that sin was not a part of God's eternal plan to glorify himself, but that God is not the primary agent or cause of sin, because as you said sin is the opposite or negative of God's very nature.
All that to say that answering the theodicy in a 1 hour podcast format is ridiculous and trying to answer it to an atheist even more so. I think they did well to dismiss it, because the atheist really has no grounds to challenge God on the problem of evil before he has a foundation to stand on to believe any truth at all. It was thrown out by the atheist near the end as a hail mary attempt to get gotcha points when his ludicrous idea of subjective reality fell on its face, and in his mind I'm sure he thinks he won this debate fabulously.
@@XvorlinkX well put sir👌🏼 I appreciate the comment
@@XvorlinkX He wasn't asking about the problem of sin from his perspective, but from theirs. How is this so difficult to understand? They blew it.
Amazing patience .... it would've broken for me at the 48:45 mark because we know it's right to intervene and we are just not being honest because we all know we stop the attacker
A lot of red herrings from the atheist side in this one.
There was, but the whole format was set up against him with this 2 v 1 set-up
@@cephasuk5296 really 1 v 1. The woman didn't add much of anything.
45 minutes in and I just noticed the pastors shirt says Flat Mars.
Yeah isn’t it funny
Morality simply put is that which minimizes harm and maximizes well-being. We are stuck sharing space on this planet so we have to be under a "social contract" with each other.... I don't wanna be killed, so I won't kill others, I don't want my stuff stolen, so I won't steal yours, And since I don't wanna be killed, stolen from, etc... it's in MY BEST INTEREST not to do those things to others... It's not that hard really. S
How can a christian not believe Earth is Flat.
Starting on the 4th Day of creation.
Sorry.. Had to turn off. 2 minutes in
Summary: It is absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true.
1 Corinthians Chapter 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The exception is the people who have a different view on morality that say rape is okay or abuse is okay, the rule is most people know in their hearts what the morality is and how it effects in society. We're getting off the topics by using individual opinions in these examples.
What’s some good recommendations for the other side of the flat earth debate ? I say rob skiba
His premise saying that because you don't fully know something that must therefore mean it's an unknown entirely is so flawed. Saying that something can only be fully known or fully unknown and there are no inbetweens is false.
Debate Billy Carson aka 4biddenknowledge. That would be a debate I would pay to see.
In what way could anyone think The Bible is a superior standard for morals when the revised version of the Ten Commandments doesn't even mention MURDER but instead opts to outlaw things like "cooking a goat in its mother's milk".
God only had four choices when it came to creation:
-Create nothing
-Create a moral-less universe
-Create a universe that only good exists
-Create a universe where there is an option for evil.
Yet there is only one of these, the fourth one, where love can exist. By free choice.
The main speaker looks like a rock star. His justification for starting with God is the problem. I listened to him to try to undunderstand his reasoning for his presupposition but I found that lacking.
When Pastor said, "even 1+1", in the context and response to "everything I've said could be wrong/100%"; that was so Powerful -We should pause there a min.
1 + 1 = 2 or 11 depends how you look at it, is the glass half empty or half full? I believe there is a right way and then there is the wrong way.
I suggest you to debate Rob Skiba. To go from a biblical prospective when comes to flat earth. I am still looking for someone to prove the globe with the bible.
Good stuff, folks. One thing, maybe try to stick with plain English principles...words like "comport" are a little over the top.
Not ONE of the verses a certain flat earther has on his website says anything about the earth being FLAT! he really REALLY gets me angry!
An unknown *variable* does not necessitate a dichotomy of know or unknown. Degrees of knowledge, by definition, can not be categorized between known or unknown unless there is an utter lack of knowledge. The atheist's default ought to be that God IS known since there is an acknowledged knowledge of God, be it limited rather than unknown.
((Jane Doe lives at apt. A on 001 West 1st st in New York City, New York.))
Many people know where Jane lives. Jane lives in New York City. Jane lives on 1st st. Jane lives at 001 West 1st. Jane lives at apartment A.
These, along with others, are in fact suitable responses to the question, "Do you know where Jane Doe lives?" Whoever is posing the question did not initially specify the degree of knowledge that they were holding to. It would be irrational for someone to respond to any of the previous answers with a definitive, "You do NOT know where Jane Doe lives."
Darkness is the absence of light as evil is the absence of good. Darkness isn’t created nor is evil.
One thing I realized a few days ago, Atheists don’t actually listen to Christians in debates like this. Like they REALLY don’t hear out the Christian
And that would be ALL atheists, correct?
If "defend the faith" means that the world is round, you have already lost.
Sin is not a created thing. It may be a part of creation and ordained by God. But it is the negative space of God's goodness in creation.
God predestines us to do everything of our own free will (aside from come to Christ, which is God calling us to him cuz no one comes to the father but by Christ) humans are by nature sinners, children of wrath.
It's an unnecessary corner theology has painted God into. Over time Christians just tried to make God too many "omni" things. The idea of God is a psychological heuristic, not a literal external person meant to withstand logical proofs.
In biblical cosmology, the firmament is the vast solid dome created by God on the second day to divide the primal sea (called tehom) into upper and lower portions so that the dry land could appear.
That was a defense tried at the Nuremberg trials that they were operating as their society said was permitted. It was rebuked in that it was recognized that there was a higher standard binding on all that was violated.
I wonder if he sees his inconsistency?
cant believe this guy was a marine, we arent in the best hands.
Blue is not an objective notion because its subject to our sense perception and therefore begging the question presuppositionally. Don’t use colors to discuss objective nature if things.
Also, you guys should start a Discord and/or checkout Darth Dawkins
At best, all Christians have is a belief in what the Bible says about god. They don’t know god, they know the Bible...well their cherry picked verses anyway.
How do you know that? Do you know what everyone else knows?
At best? What do you mean by “best”
@@christrighteousministries5932 “At the most”
@@TMA2NC The most of what though? And can you explain your ideology about “They don’t know god?” Because how can you claim an individual doesn’t know someone without you having there experience or encounter? Explain and provide evidence
@@arno7303 No, I don’t know what everyone else knows. I have no reason to believe anyone’s outrageous claims about a supernatural invisible being.
It reminds me of a sales meeting I had years ago at a potential customer’s home in the rural south US. In making small talk with the lady of the house, I commented on her drafting table. She proceeded to show me her detailed drawings of building plans for a mansion she and Brad Pitt and their future 13 kids would live in. She beamed with excitement as she told me what Brad likes and tried to tell me her plans for decorating each of the 15 bedrooms. Since I’m not in the business of wasting my time, I put an end to that.
The point is, the info she’s collected on BP came from the media and her imagination, not from an actual relationship with BP.
It all gets cooking around the 1:00:00 mark. This is silly! They keep telling the atheist "You can't understand us!" The atheist is objectively saying If God created everything (according to the Bible), he also created evil. As evil is a thing included in all things. Period. I returned to the church after 20 years of atheism, and this is making me want to return to atheism. I don't think the Holy Spirit makes people unable to think about philosophy. In essence they are saying you can't make sense out of it all (to which I agree) but then I question why would anyone care? And therefore, how could you ever convince anyone of anything. I appreciate Marcs patience.
First, your first argument would make sense if the materialist worldview were true. The whole point is to point out the absurdity of atheism, an absurdity atheists cling to because they love their sin more than they love God and truth. Truth can be painful at times.
Second, since God has no privations, He is therefore perfectly good. He is the objective standard for morality, for goodness. He cannot do evil. He does allow evil to happen, but He also knows everything and judges all things perfectly, what we may perceive as evil is actually for good.
Finally, the atheist worldview does not have a solid moral framework (as Marc demonstrates).
@@nemesis3329 Just because atheism has no moral standards does not mean God exists to provide them.
@@hamnchee
Your claim is a non sequitur. You actually prove my point. And there are many other proofs of God's existence than just the moral argument.
@@nemesis3329 I didn't prove your point, I just said yours was a non sequitur.
@@hamnchee
And how exactly is my original point a "non sequitur?" First, you need to demonstrate that atheism is true, and therefore no moral standards exist (i.e. relativism is true). You simply asser that because atheism as a worldview holds no objective moral standards (this far you are correct), that somehow that is evidence God does not exist. Non sequitur.
You prove my point:
Atheism = no moral standards
No moral standards = relativism
Objective moral standards do exist
Therefore, relativism is false
Objective moral standards transcend human beings and are always true, regardless of time, place or circumstance. Moral standards, like logic and minds are immaterial.
First definition of "good" is Morally Perfect. Only one being, God, is morally perfect. Therefore, God is the unchanging objective, transcendent moral standard.
I can give you the seven fatal flaws of relativism if you wish, as a side note.
You can’t credit Christian teaching for your ethic of giving then claim it’s “of yourself”. It’s borrowed moral capital.
I also think a biblical and thorough study of the Doctrine of Original Sin would be in order.
I’d like to see you guys debate a Muslim apologist. Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods. There’s no real atheist apologetics because there’s no doctrine or dogmas. Watching you guys debate a Knowledgeable Muslim would be...fun.
Is he capable of thinking in categories? Not trying to be a jerk but he is all over the place... how does he go from a loan to tithing???
What is your Founfation?
I would be very curious to see where Marc was trying to go with His history rant, was he trying to say that there was nothing special about the Death of Jesus and he didn't die due to God's plan or what?. This was great, I have not spoke with or talked to an atheist before and this was mind blowing. Keep up these debates. Very interesting
What I would say, as an atheist, is that there are historical facts in the bible, for example someone called Jesus very likely existed. However, the miracle claims, such as rising from the dead, are not believable/justified. Like as if in a 1000 years from now someone would stumble on a spiderman comic and would conclude that spiderman must have existed for real since New York also did.
@@Myrmion909 interesting thought process. Can I ask where do you believe life came from? How did humans develop?
@@johnmueller3736 Science tells us we evolved from simple single-celled organisms to complex multicellular organisms over millions of years. Evolution is currently a well established fact backed by thousands upon thousands of scientific papers. This in contrast to the beginning of life, we only have hypotheses for this at the moment, the prevailing one is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.
@@Myrmion909 Can I ask how does that coincide with The second law of thermodynamics which, in simple terms, states that things always go from order to disorder. How can life go form disorder to order with science law states the opposite? Where would you say that the first, simple, single cell organism came from? Also one other question I have is does the current theory say we came from fish and then monkeys? or what was before humans? And will we evolve into other creatures?
@@johnmueller3736 Using the word 'disorder' to describe the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolution is often done by theists to obfuscate. It is more accurate to use entropy instead, the second law only states that you 'lose' some energy in the form of heat in a given process (= increase of entropy). This doesn't hinder evolution at all; A can be converted into B just fine, the fact that some of the energy is converted to heat in the process doesn't stop it from happening.
Concerning the first single celled organisms, as I said we don't know how life started yet although there are some hypotheses which still need to be confirmed, scientists are working on it. It is oke to say we don't know yet, that's better then making stuff up as many religions do..;)..
We share DNA with apes, I believe most with chimpanzees, this ofcourse does not mean we evolved from chimpanzees. Just that we have a common ancestor with them. It's like groups of these ancestors split up, one group ending up in a part of the world with lots of trees, where natural selection selected for the best climbers since those were able to survive predators by climbing in the trees. The other group ended up in the plains were they had to outsmart their predators in order to survive (no trees to hide in), so natural selection selected for the smartest ones, this lead to the evolution of the brain and eventually the human species. Evolution happens over millions of years with slow incremental changes so it is hard for us to imagine but that's what science tells us. The human species as we see today will probably not change a lot anymore since the survival element today is not as important as it used to be.
Objective reality is independent of perception. You can use any law and demonstrate the untruthfulness of that claim.
Reality is _not_ independent of perception. Reality _necessitates_ perception. Realities are the set of all _observable_ phenomena.
Laws of nature do not demonstrate phenomena. Phenomena demonstrate the laws of nature.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Ah, interesting claims. What proof do you have?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Jonathan Pageau’s The Symbolic World channel
@@theoskeptomai2535 I'd have to disagree with you there. I think rocks still exist when we look away.