Apologist Answers Atheist's 3 Objections to Christianity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2022
- At UT Dallas, Christian Apologist Frank Turek has an enlightening exchange with an atheist named Carter. Frank discusses the following objections:
- The moral argument is offensive because it says atheists can't be moral!
- Why can't the universe be the uncaused first cause?
- If we don't believe in God, He will send us to Hell!
original video - • Frank Turek Answers At...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada - Наука та технологія
ERRATA! The T in thermodynamics formula is temperature, not time. Please don't repeat my error. The point does stand about entropy without time, but this formula does not demonstrate it. Ugh. Sorry.
And instead of saying matter (which is structured, and possible only when this Universe cooled down) I would rather say energy.
This is why we love you Paul. You’re demonstrating intellectual integrity and correcting your mistakes. This is only further compounded as being a virtue when you’re responding to the polar opposite, Frank Turek, who wouldn’t be capable of identifying his own issue under oath at risk of death.
Keep it up, legend!!!
Long ago I took a graduate level course in classical thermodynamics. Thermodynamics in the classical sense is the study of how heat moves and, when it moves, how much work can be extracted or must be added. The second law basically just tells us that heat will never flow from a low temperature reservoir to a higher temperature reservoir without doing some work. That is why your refrigerator has to be plugged into an electrical socket to work. Think about the formula. T (temperature) is in the denominator. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold. Suppose 20 units of heat at a temperature of 4 flow to a reservoir with a temperature of 1. The higher temperature reservoir loses entropy of 20/4 = 5 and the lower temperature reservoir gains entropy of 20/1 = 20. The net change is an increase of 15. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold. When it does the total entropy increases. That is the second law in its classical form.
I came rushing to the comments....but, phew, corrected :) I think the point here is you probably don't want to learn any of this from either Frank or Paul, try someone like Professor Brian Cox (be great if you could get him on your show!).
Franks ”somebody must have wound it up” is just as stupid regardless. All that the low entropy state the universe found itself in soon after the big ban means is that after the big bang began, most of the energy in the universe was available to do work, simply because that was all it could do. No tri-omni invisible sky-daddy friend necessary.
"You know that the Jedi are the good guys" - There're massive conversations and debates about the moral shortcomings, mistakes, and downright evil behaviour of the Jedi. Both in the movies and in the extended lore. They kidnap children and indoctrinate them, are constantly lying and hiding the truth, force students to ignore their feelings, are extremely hypocritical and more. It's almost like morality is fluid and circumstantial, and people can disagree on areas of it.
Ah, but he only has to sell a superficial and dualistic, good guy vs. bad guy message to his audience.
Never mind that according to his biblical claims, we're all "bad guys".
Moral shortcomings, mistakes, indoctrination of children and sometimes downright evil behaviour… sounds like religion :D
Render unto the Empire that which is the Empire's and watch out the Jedi do not kidnap your children to become light sabre weilding intergalactic trouble makers.
I was just thinking that!
I give you the case of Obiwan Kenobi's assignment to murder General Grievous. Bill Whittle's praise of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Christians who claim the moral high ground but celebrate the deaths of their enemies. Isn't that ironic.
It is extremely comical to me that they can't, among themselves, agree on morality yet they insist it is universal. 🤯
It's quite a relief that heaven is just fiction. Imagine having to spend an eternity with Frank Turek.
Doubt he would wind up there if there was one. So dont worry :p
@Soselo Dzhugashvili Or being one of God’s groupies, just following Him around telling Him how amazing He is for all eternity.
That would be hell. 🤣
I'd rather be having a drink and a smoke with the sublime Christopher Hitchens. Cheers!
As they say, heaven for the climate, hell for the company 😁
Ironic how Frank accepts complex scientific theory when it comes to cosmology but rejects well-established, observable evidence when it comes to biology.
If it can be used to enforce his narrative, it's "real" science, and if it disproves his narrative, it's "fake" science
He is a professional cherry-picker, after all
Good point!
More like he twists and distorts complex scientific theory when it comes to cosmology.
It is because God created the complex theories of science. Amen?
Frank's argument boils down to: anything asserted confidently is true.
I'm very sure about being right! Therefor, I am right! :D
You sound so confident, you must be right!
@@Unsensitive I'm never wong.
@@DeconvertedMan are you Chang or Jia on occasion?
@@Unsensitive oh no I said wong not wrong and I am wrong so I must be right.
My moral standard "written on my heart" from a very early age, from reading the Bible, told me that the Old Testament "God" was horrible and immoral. Yet all around me were people praising and worshipping that monster.
If i ever felt a need to believe in some "god", i can find one in folklore or literature -- or make up my very own -- who is far better morally than the Bible one.
I figured that out when I too was a kid. Why the hell should i worship someone who is effectively an abusive father?
@@Montesama314 Exactly!
I remember being a child in Sunday school and wondering why everyone was praising this guy who, very clearly, behaves as a tyrannical and egotistic psychopath
@@Farce13 That certainly was a mystery to me too.
Frank Turek deserves every second of this video. Now where's my copy of "I don't have enough patience to listen to Frank Turek"? You need to bring back your "Lying for Jesus" award Paul. Turek could be in the Hall of Fame
Someone said to Frank Turek, If there is a heaven, I do not want to go there. Frank asked him why. He said, because if there are people like you there, it would truly be hell.
I don't know how to classify him lol. He's certainly a better/more rational actor than hovind and Co, but that makes me hold him to a higher standard.
@@jacofalltrades7610 The only difference between Frank Turek and Kent Hovind, is that Turek pretends that science agrees with his opinion... Hovind just claims the bible is the word of God, and that's all that matters. Both are con men.
There's a thing (song, perhaps?) that's called that? I've gotta look that up, now!
@@timhallas4275 On the contrary, Hovind claims to have a doctorate and claims to have taught biology for a number of years. I know the former is a gross exaggeration since his credentials are not academically approved, but if the latter is true, I feel bad for the kids he "taught".
21:44 "You can continue to reject god in hell. But you're confined to hell. In fact, hell is a quarantine of evil."
Woah woah woah. Notice how Frank goes from describing hell as separation from god, just a place for the people who don't want to be in god's presence. Then he slips in EVIL, as if to say that simply not wanting to be in god's presence is evil. Which, going back to his analogy of not wanting to date someone, means that the person being pursued against their will is EVIL for not wanting to be in their stalker's presence, despite having every right to reject it.
Sounds like Frank hasn't thought through this point very well.
Everything about that analogy shows he didn't think it through very well. With the whole "ladies, you might as well stick a knife in and turn it" bit... like what does he expect the woman to do in that situation? Accept a sexual relationship with this person even though she doesn't like him like that?
Didn't realize that Frank Turek was a Supreme Gentleman himself! 🎩
Combine that with the idea that all his affection is so well hidden that it might as well not exist, it paints a pretty clear picture. God is a Facebook Stalker and an Incell.
Actually Frank gets the point across very well: the idea that “god” is an abusive misogynistic arsehole and there is no way to escape him is an integral part of his god hypothesis. Merely on those grounds we do well to simply reject it. 😏🤷
Frank also sounds like a master manipulator at work.
"Let grandpa give you a kiss and a hug, honey. You'll break his heart if you don't!" Every child victimized by a handsy older relative knows how revolting that kind of "love" is. I don't need to get my morality from a creepy old may who will be disappointed and may even shed a tear if I don't let him fondle me.
You ask two people "Why wouldn't you just murder people to get what you want?"
One of them answers: "Because I don't want to hurt people, that would make me feel terrible!"
The other answers: "Because my father threatened to punish me if I did!"
Which of these two would you think is more moral, the one you should aspire to be more like?
Arguments like this are why some (such as myself) believe morality is subjective.
my answer would be i dont want people to murder me so im fine with no murdering other
Or because the police might catch me and I don't want to be put in prison
@@therawkhawk64 Regardless it's subjective. Even if it's bad because God says so that's still subjective. It's just inserting God's supposed opinion eith your own.
Or, as is more concerning to a general audience, who would you rather be neighbors with?
Before we determine if atheists can have morals, we should first determine if apologists can have intellectual honesty.
Challenge Level: Impossible
We've checked: they can't.
More precisely, they have a version of the engineer's triangle: (1) honest, (2) well-informed, (3) religious apologist - you cannot have all three, at most you can have two.
All "morals" are personal preference. There's no logical or scientific reason that bombing orphanages is more "wrong" than constructing orphanages.
"I'm sending you to eternal damnation and excruciating, never-ending pain, because I love you."
i.imgur.com/Ki1J1Uv.jpg
"You can not justify that murder is wrong!“🥴
Well, and Frank thinks that he can justify that murder is wrong based on a book that is filled with countless stories that have been proven to be fiction and has hundreds of commandments that he no longer has to follow because God changed his mind on morality?😂
Not to mention the murder commanded in that very book.
And that book also has some questionable morals / laws in it.
AND a book that justifies all sorts of the most hideous murders directed and sanctioned by this god. And a book that has also been used to justify some of the worse genocide ever since.
@@johnnehrich9601 that too
My only response to that is; what does the legality of something have to do with morality?
Frank: "There's only two possibilities if God exists. In Eternity you are going to be with him or you're not going to be with him."
Not if God is omnipresent.
Frank is very good at pointing out how there appear to be a lot of things his omni³ god can't do.
Plus there's a question of proximity. "With" is not some binary.
Well phrasing it as “your going to spend eternity being tortured by him or not being tortured by him “ sort of removes the cognitive dissonance he seems to be promoting.
If there is a "moral law written on people's hearts", how is it that every person has a different set of morals? Wouldn't our moral code be exactly the same if morals come from a single source?
Exactly. And how could that be possible if we supposedly have free will?
The whole thing is to a large degree only "justifyable" thanks to vague and ambiguous language, which is just a sign of equally vague and ambiguous thinking... I'd bet a year's salary that Turek couldn't actually define "free will" or "morality" and _not_ contradict his own definition sooner or later if asked the right questions...
@@Wolf-ln1ml absolutely
You know, the “heart” bit was written by people who, contrary to the actual science of the tIme, clung to the idea that the heart and the kidneys were the seat of reason and thought, although people already knew the function of brain in that department. Galen even showed that specific functions were localised to centres in the brain at about the same time the gospels were written. The bible authors also thought the earth was flat and that there is an ocean in outer space above “the firmament”, even though the heliocentric model had been proposed centuries before. So since Turek clings to those antiquated ideas, he can be dismissed off hand. He either knows nothing about the real world or he just denies all progress science has made the past two millennia.
@@martinnyberg9295 Testify, brother! 😉
I love how one argument is, “You know the Jedi are the good guys and the Sith are the bad guys.” There are very good arguments to call the Jedi bad guys. Perhaps not as bad as Sith, but still extremely flawed. (The point is not to start a Star Wars argument, but rather to point out that morality is extremely complicated and subjective)
As Obi-Wan once said, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
@@Lobsterwithinternet That raises the paradox of non-Sith _never_ dealing in absolutes... _absolutely_ never...
@@Lobsterwithinternet To which Darth Turek would respond "Is it absolutely true that only a Sith deals in absolutes?"
Man remember that time Chewbacca was such a badass that aliens had to resort to _dropping a moon on him_ to kill him? That's how you send off a well beloved character.
The Jedi are only "good" if you subscribe to slave morality, which is a product largely of Christianity. The Sith are "good" if you subscribe to master morality.
Frank just answers a question that he feels like he can address instead of the question asked.
I like when they give the example of objective good "torturing babies FOR FUN", which implies there are times where it is OK to torture babies as long as it isn't just enjoyment. This kind of defeats their objective morality claim.
Absolutely. I have pointed this out before and it makes me wonder why he said that. I believe that the reason is the almost sacrifice of Abraham's son. Because, essentially, almost killing someone is torture, especially a child. And in Frank's worldview, this was justified, because it wasn't "for fun," though I would arguably say that an all-knowing god would just know the outcome and tortured Isaac (I think that this is his name) just for fun or for any other sadistic purpose
My guess is he wanted to be extra sure his go-to example would be viewed as evil by everyone, or he wanted a degree of shock value. Something along the lines of "atheists believe in subjective morality, therefore this horrible thing is okay in their eyes?"
Because God ordered the Israelites to kill babies somewhere in the Old Testament. The apologetic is : since the group that birthed them was Evil they would grow up Evil. Therefore God ordering them killed before they become Evil sends them straight to Heaven. No pleasure involved, just a saving a soul one baby murder at a time.
@@joshuaa7266 I always like when they miss the subject part of subjective morality, as in, its up to the moral agent to decide it's moral or not. In a babies worldview, an invasive medical procedure would bee seen as tortuous, if you don't believe me take one in for their immunization. In that case, the baby has incomplete information as to why it's being tortured, but if it could understand the purpose and intent of jabbing a needle into it it would not see the act as evil. So even in claiming objectivity, we find a grey area, sometimes, torturing babies is a moral good.
A pediatrician who enjoys immunizing babies may have fun doing so, perhaps the challenge of having true aim on a small body and seeing how many they can do before the baby cries gives them joy?. Is it morally wrong? So long as they do what is necessary without causing undue discomfort to the baby, it may be crass but evil would be a stretch. The doctor wouldn't see their actions as evil, certainly.
It's a pre-emptive dodge, because we can point out that God drowned all the babies in the world and ordering the stabbing of thousands more. But for people like Turek, when God did it, it was 'just' and 'moral'. Apologists need to add the 'for fun' element to make it wrong for humans.
You know I had been in hospital and they pushed a tube into my chest and took pictures of my hart . I were very surprised to note that it had no door nor was there anything written on it. I fact it appeared to just be a bodily organ. I was shocked after all these year of people knocking on my hart an writing things on it.
So weird how they can understand and apply metaphorical/poetic meaning some of the time, but when it suits them _no!_ The bible is to be taken literally!
It's almost like they know they're being dishonest and twisting this old book to suit their own purposes~
I love that last analogy of Frank. So imagine you (god in this case) courting a woman and she eventually decides to call it off; she chooses not to love you. You then, by analogy, punish her for the rest of her life for not loving you instead of letting it go, finding another partner and her able to live and love elsewhere.
Well if you explain to her that you're a jealous god first....
@@kenbee1957 - yes, indeed. And what is the base of jealousy if we peel back the onion?
Insecurity.
God is insecure, the most powerful bass ass dude is just like me; still feels inadequate sometimes when other people bump into our orbit. Hmm maybe I don’t hate god as much now (at least that’s what I’m told I do). Seems like a guy I can relate to…
@@ardbegthequestion
The old testament God was actually very human. A horrible human that is, but he made a bit of logical sense.
But people over the years have been chipping away at this. Until we have arrived at this omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient outside of time...thing
Creates the entire infinite Universe...but also cares about whether you masturbate
This is a poor continuation of Frank’s analogy because God doesn’t force punishment on anyone. People who decide to walk away from Him do.
Imagine the woman you married decides to leave the relationship and wants absolutely nothing to do with you for the foreseeable future.
Of course the divorce breaks your heart, but you (God in this case) decide to let go her. Tell me, would you continue to give your now spiteful ex-wife access to things that belong exclusively to you (i.e your finances, your property, etc) ? Surely not.
God is the same way. If one truly wants to walk away from Him, then by all means they can go ahead. He gives us the freewill to do so. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that you can reject God and still keep access to things that are exclusively His (i.e Heaven, eternal life). If you reject God, then you reject everything that comes with Him as well. Simple.
@@ajmulenga2532 - you left out the bit of hell. I’m completely fine if at the end of my life, it’s over. So giving up what you think god is graciously granting me, doesn’t matter. So that’s why hell kinda needs invention. As a scare tactic to get around the “I can be perfectly fine and be a decent, caring, loving, full-of-meaning and purpose kind of guy without needed to appeal to a deity for such things”.
Divorcing from an ideology I can no longer hold and not sensing, feeling, experiencing, being told by a god how broken heart, angry, disappointed, or simply ambivalent it is towards me for leaving the faith, only continually shows that that decision makes more sense than trying to make believe.
Somehow the question of "did a god create the universe?" or "did the universe arise naturally?" gets conflated with "did Jesus die for my sins?" As an atheist I have no problem with the idea that a god might have done it. As a former fundamentalist Christian I see much wrong with Christian theology.
There's certainly a lot of difference between the two ideas, and William "Widow Twankey" Craig is another one that jumps from one to the other as if one followed inevitable from the other. It makes him look ridiculous every time he does it.
If the only claim most religious people made was; «i think a creator deity made the universe», i dont think anyone would care whatsoever. But when you want to make changes in the world in accordance with what YOU think that specific creator deity wants is when friction arises.
What’s wrong with a world that follows Christian direction. Too many people loving their neighbors, serving their communities, caring for the sick and poor, obeying the laws, rejecting chasing wealth or power for purposeful living, showing humility and kindness, accepting the freedom of others to worship what or whoever they please, etc?
@@danielw7290 That would be pretty good. It isn't what has happened with the religion
@@jimjohnson3349 Well, it’s because nobody in Christianity is perfect.
"If he truly loved you, he would let you go"
No that's not quite right, we're making a God analogy so it should go like this:
"If he truly loved you, he'd lock you up in his basement and tortured you forever"
Morality is relative and subjective. Doesn’t matter what any apologist or morality absolutist says. The evidence is historical.
And current, since not all societies in the world share the same morals.
Yup. Even their god morality isnby definition subjective and relative. Especially when no two theists can agree on what is and isn't moral.
Not even two christians who are supposed to believe in the same god can agree on what is objectively moral.
Heck, not even the bible can agree on what is objectively and consistently moral.
I always enjoy their "torturing babies for fun is immoral" line, I guess they know their gawd did it a lot, but really wasn't enjoying himself so it was OK.
@@ziploc2000 That does not prove morality is subjective, though. People disagreeing on a topic is not evidence that the topic in question is subjective. This is a terrible argument.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 I guess that depends on how you define morality.
"God loves you too much to force you into his presence" ah so sending you to Hell for not believing in God is an act of love. Of course!
Every time I hear Frank talk about morality being "written" on our hearts I want to scream.
Exactly. Nobody who knows anything has claimed we think with our hearts the latest 2000 years. His “knowledge” about anatomy and physiology is hopelessly outdated.
The "T" in Q/T is actually temperature! Entropy is understood as energy per unit temperature when defined this way, the arrow-of-time thing is a little more subtle and does not appear directly in this (correct) definition of entropy, it is the 2nd principle that takes care of that
Really love your videos anyway, keep up the good work Paul!
You were more fast than me. Correct
Ah just typed this and then saw this.
Quite right. 'delta-Q' over time would be change in energy over time which is the definition of power not entropy.
Yeah, little "t" is time. dS/dt would be rate of change of entropy. It would be dQ/dt/(dT/dt)
I came down to the comments to write this. I think I recall Paul saying he doesn't have an explicit technical background so this kind of mistake is excusable.
On this subject, I am usually impressed with the understanding he articulates on technical topics.
Keep up the good work Paul.
If we accept Turek's logic, we'd have to view rendering first aid to an unconscious and bleeding person as an act of horrifying evil because we would be taking it upon ourselves to override that person's free choice to go unaided. Compared to an omniscient creator, we're about as conscious and aware as a paramecium is to us. If God's will is purely good, and aiding a relatively blind and unaware being is wrong, then aiding anyone or anything in no position to help itself is an evil ambition.
I think you are absolutely correct. But I would rather have this kind of Christian hypocrisy than have people like Christian Scientists, who would just let their kids die because it is "God's will."
Their invisible sky wizard is not even worthy of worship. Why would I want to worship a monster like that.
Agreed. YHWH is a villain and definitely not worthy of worship
That deity concept is abhorrent!
@@c.guydubois8270 i don't find the concept itself abhorrent. If it exists then it exists. I doubt it exists. YHWH on the other hand, as portrayed in the bible, is quite abhorrent
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y what gave you the idea I was thinking/speaking of another deity? That deity concept, the concept exists while the deity apparently doesn't, is an abomination...
@@c.guydubois8270 i thought you were referring to the general concept of a deity not the abrahamic one in particular. My bad
It is rare to see bad arguments deteriorate to new lows and yet Frankie boy has managed it.
What’s particularly infuriating about these apologists is that most of them have had or have seen debates with physicists who explained to them why and how their appropriation of science is wrong and yet they continue to use the same arguments. In other words, they lie, argue in bad faith and should not be taken seriously. One thing they seem to be fixating on is causality, and that’s a topic that modern science has A LOT to say about that they don’t want to hear.
"God loves us so much that he won't force us to be with him eternally..."
Knowing that we will then be miserable for eternity..
Frank follows up with an analogy of a man pursuing a wife.
But the relationship between god and us is more like a father to his children.
If my child really wants to jump into the fire..I love my child enough not to force him not to jump.
More like an incel going after a girl.
Well If I set up a bunch of signs/precautions/warnings, give my child a 1,189 vividly chaptered book, and even plunge myself into the fire as an example as to why he shouldn’t jump in the flames….and yet he still chooses to, then who really deserves the blame?
@@ajmulenga2532 You, because you're the parent. You are older, wiser, and should love your child enough to do what is right for them even if it is not what they want right now. You fucking psychopathic idiot.
I'm glad you let the clips run long enough to give whomever was speaking time to make their point. Other similar channels seem to cut in every 5 seconds or so making it challenging to understand what is going on.
For an eternal, all knowing, supreme being who writes morality on to human hearts, God sure does seem to update his moral stances quite alot...
Oddly enough when it supposedly does, you have people like Turek who argue that genocidal maniacs suddenly becoming human and changing the rules entirely, somehow still isn't changing its mind lol.
If we all have morality written on our hearts, why did god need to put a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden?
And if it truly was written on our hearts, why did they only have that knowledge after they partook of the fruit?
If they didn't have it already, then it isn't written on our hearts. If they did have it already, why did they need to eat from the tree at all and so why punish them for being as He created them to be?
He can find the moral law written on our hearts but Ken Ham can't find the dates written in the ice.
Such stupid clowns :)
I always like to point out that Frank's god to clear all of this up instantly but providing some obvious and irrefutable proof of it's existence but never seems to bother.
No matter how many ways Frank defines God, it comes down to..." We assume something had to create the universe, and if we don't know for certain what did, then God is the only answer we have." It's exactly the same as saying "evolution doesn't make sense to me, therefore it can't be true." Imagine not teaching children any science, then telling them that on the science test any answers they give will be marked as correct as long as it is what they believe. That is Christianity in a nutshell. Teaching that magic is real, and knowledge is bad.
This idea that God "caused" the universe is so clunky, because it leads to the obvious question, "What caused God?".
So we are still stuck with how did we come into existence, just one step further back.
Turtles all the way down.
@@Cheepchipsable Where was God when the Earth was a molten ball of melted rock for 400 million years? That's a very long rest between creative acts.
Since Creationists are such analogy lovers, here's one giving a rough sketch of the elevator pitch for the Big Bang as described in the standard model of cosmology:
Space can be compared to a balloon inflated over time. What we call the "Big Bang event" is the beginning of the inflation. Thus, before the Big Bang, all we can say is that we have a non-inflated balloon. That's neither the beginning of our reality, nor a creation event "from nothing", since the balloon was clearly already there, in its entirety.
You have to rework your pitch. Inflation preceded the big bang. 😏😊
@@martinnyberg9295 Nope, inflation starts at the inflationary epoch technically. 😉
Perhaps you think of eternal inflation models, but these are neither the standard model, nor do we know enough about the behaviour of gravity on a quantum scale to be able to determine which model is accurate before 10‐³² seconds after the expected Big Bang event.
@@lucofparis4819 Of course inflation starts in the inflationary epoch. BEFORE the big bang. The energy from the inflaton field is what makes the big bang hot. Inflation is not part of the hot big bang but leads to it. 😊👍🏻 (I was not aware there are ANY proposed theories of inflation that can lay claim to being The Standard Model, but my latest physics degree is 23 years old by now so I might just have missed the news. 😁🖖)
@@martinnyberg9295 What I refer to as the 'Big Bang event' is basically 't=0' and whatever occurrence 'triggered' the Expansion, quantum fluctuation or any other plausible mechanism. As far as I understand it, inflation theories refer to a particular phenomenon within the Expansion that presumably started at t= 10-³² seconds, or at t= 0, depending on whever we consider one of the working theories that postulate eternal inflation or not.
In those eternal inflation theories, inflation is eternal, duh, thus may or may not start at the Big Bang event or before, if the Big Bang event happens not to be the beginning of 'all' time, but only of some set of worldlines corresponding to the particles within the observable universe. But in theories that _don't_ postulate eternal inflation, said phenomenon only comes _after_ the Big Bang event, during the Inflation Epoch, which does not go all the way down to t=0, since we don't really know what to make of the model's results at this particular point in time.
What is usually referred to as the standard model of cosmology is the one with the most evidentiary support and the fewer assumptions, aka the λCDM model of cosmology, with flat spacetime and inflation, but no _eternal_ inflation, since it adheres to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which purportedly demonstrates that inflation 'must have a beginning'. I don't know whether that's actually the case, as I don't understand the maths being used in any of these things.
However I have a brain, an Internet access, and had enough curiosity to look into this stuff until I got the rough picture of the "state of the art" when it comes to the cosmological literature. That being said, I don't think I am misrepresenting anything here, only simplifying. If you're aware of an actual misunderstanding of mine, feel free to point out specifically what I got wrong.
@@lucofparis4819 I don’t know if there is a misunderstanding, but “t=0”is just a convention and means nothing really. I think what we are arguing is about semantics. I use “big bang” to mean the beginning of the hot dense state that follows the inflationary phase (the energy that makes it hot comes from inflating space-time, so it must come before), kind of like how Fred Hoyle used the term way before anyone had even thought about inflation (and he, just like the famous dead or alive cat, tried to point out what he saw as flaws in the model), while you seem to mean “the beginning of inflation”. The inflationary models I have heard about (“eternal” or not) separate the inflation from the “bang”, and in a sense we still live in the big bang since the laws governing spacetime and quantum fields have not changed in 13.7 billion years or so. I like to think of spacetime inflating on its own for a while before all the banging starts, it just makes more sense to me. 😊
Morality is actually written on the ventro-medial and dorso-lateral pre-frontal cortex, not the heart.
#1 Love is shown through actions not invisibility! That is it
This is one of my favorite videos that you have done. The Free Willy pic made me laugh out loud. It is so interesting and scary to me that a smart man like Frank cannot see when he is compromising his intellectual integrity. When I was a believer I would speak of freedom in Christ. Now I realize that having to make excuses for a very small very cruel and incredibly inconsistent impersonal God is the opposite of freedom. I used to do that though because I knew He was real so any sort of argument I made was probably right if it felt right because my conclusion had already been established in my heart. It was only when I honored God by giving Him room to be what He presented Himself to be in the Bible and in nature (as opposed to my spinning this revelation to fit intuition and evidence)... it was only then, in showing God this kind of respect, that I started to question His divinity. Divinity shouldn't be this janky. God's immoral behavior failed to live up to even the most basic understanding of love that a 4-year-old possesses. He's the bad guy. And not in a nuanced way - in a glaring horrifying monstrous way. It scares me that I so easily overlooked that. It humbles me that I could, and probably am, overlooking important stuff now. But now I turn to objectivity over feelings. I try to anyway. The teachers of the law believed that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and they didn't pivot. Those were the smart guys of the day. When I was a Christian I committed to not being blind like those murderers. I believed God's ego was strong enough to endure me putting it all on the table. After all, His truth would win in the end. He would be waiting for me at the end of Reason's Road. Surely He loved me enough to give me what I needed to find Him in a way that did not rely on the kind of myopic bias the teachers of the law demonstrated. In a way... I guess my relaxed/non-defensive respectable image of God did lead me to a model of reality that was consistent with the love I feel for my kids AND my enemies. I wonder if Frank ever gets that same little feeling I used to get, like he is defending God in a way like a battered partner defends an abusive lover? True freedom from sin is freedom from these Christian beliefs. Life is so much sweeter and feels calmer/grounded. I can be open enough to have my beliefs changed by evidence. Things line up better and make more sense. I am also not stressed out when I realize, "I don't know." Looking back, I had feelings like I was telling lies maybe to protect someone. A big loving God doesn't need that. Perfect revelation from a Creator who KNOWS us should be better. Way better.
"Morality is objective - it comes from god"
"So we should stone adulteresses, as written in the good book"
"No, no, that was THEN. Now times are different, because jeezus yaba yaba".
Why does turek insist on stating “if atheism is true”? Does he still not understand the definition?
He does, but acknowledging that would weaken his arguments (or at the least force him to come up with a new script) so he continues to lie for Jeebus.
"God loves you too much to force you into his presence"... and instead sends you to eternal torture. Frank didn't dare say it, but if that Lawyers Grandma didn't convert on her deathbed, she's in Hell now, beeing tortured eternally. Because God loves her so much.
And the one Question i have never heard anyone ask an Apologist on this topic, but would really like to hear: "Why is there no third option? Or fourth?"
Eternal torture is completely incompatible with an All-Loving God. The concept of hell is a deal-breaker in believing in Christianity and the immoral nature and actions of the God of Abraham makes me reject the notion of any religion associated with him.
"You're free to continue to reject God in hell, but you're not free to change your mind and accept God in hell, after you have sufficient evidence to make your decision. You're only free when it's unclear." That's been God's MO from day 6. He created his children without any knowledge of right and wrong, ordered them not to eat the fruit that would give them that knowledge, telling them that it would mean death - even though they had no understanding of death, either. They couldn't understand the consequences until they had eaten of the fruit that both gave them the understanding of death and led to their suffering of it. And not just theirs. We, too, according to the Bible, will all die and fall short of heaven without ever needing to sin ourselves thanks to this first "sin" of these two innocent people who were all but set up to fail. But we will sin, because God made us flawed and sinful by nature, which is why he has to punish us. But we can be saved from this sin committed by someone else by believing in his son, who's also God, who suffered to pay the debt of that original sin (to himself) that neither we nor he committed.
Non-Stamp Collector has a great video about that plan...
I'm very glad you clearly stated here you don't think free will exists and things are determinism based. I've been at this stance for a while and it's good to know I'm not odd for thinking so
Frank made a physics mistake that's a pet peeve of mine. Matter/mass is a form of energy. That's fundamentally what E=mc^2 means, that we can convert mass to other forms of energy and vice versa.
Thank you! I absolutely cringe when he flaps his gums about things he doesn’t know anything about. I’m pretty sure I learned this back in my high school physic’s course. 😂
Day 1) I need a loaf of bread, but decided I don't want to pay for it so I murdered the baker and took it. Yay, I'm ahead of the game.
Day 2) I need a loaf of bread. Oh bollocks.
We are a social species. We need each other to survive. Even if you don't value social interaction, you need those goods you can't produce for yourself. Murder for profit doesn't work in a social species.
murder doesn't, but slavery on the other hand ...
@@phileas007 slavery is inefficient as you need an entire social structure to make it work. Mutual cooperation is much better.
It always amuses me when people like Frank say that God exists in a timeless, spaceless non-material way. Something that doesn't exist at any point in time doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist at any point in space, doesn't exist. 🤷🏼♂️
That we know of, be careful of asserting what can't be investigated, that's their game.
@@bodricthered Existence requires time and space. That's what it means to exist.
I've been reading philosophy books focused on formal ontology + Epistemic Justice / Epistemic Rights for a couple years now, and I am quite sure none of these apologists understand either Epistemology or Ontology!
@@thevulture5750philosophy is love of knowledge. Knowledge is validly justified true belief, built upon prior knowledge.
3:08 is me!! I asked William Lane Craig the same question!!! Irritated he responded with epistemology vs ontology. Feels like he’s dodging the point.
@@thevulture5750 the comment that asked William Lane Craig the question posted is me.
@@thevulture5750 go to the time stamp and look at the video you see that jrivera345 question on the TV screen.
@15:37 the “Free Willy” image for the discussion of free will nearly made me spit my coffee out 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yay for spilled beverages!
17:50 -- Frank: _"There are only two possibilities if gawd exists. In eternity, you are only going to be with him or not with him"_ -- Why are those the only 2 options? Why can't gawd pluck you out of hell once you have paid your penance? Why can't you be sent to hell if you do something egregious in heaven? Why are you stuck in one place or the other for eternity? That makes no sense. These are clearly not the only 2 logical options.
Indeed.
It seems that one of the biggest oversights in terms of thinking that apologists engage in are false dichotomies.
You see this a lot. “Either God exists or life has no meaning”, “Either God exists or there is no basis for morality”, etc.
Closely related to that are blanket statements that are not even true, “no one would die for a lie”.
So Earth was perfect and humans (or the snake) fucked it up almost immediately despite everything on earth being good, who's to say we didn't fuck up heaven immediately despite it supposably being perfect lol
@@dolfuny And remember, Gawd himself put not only the snake in the garden, but also the two magic trees that humans weren't supposed to touch. He intentionally set humans up for failure.
@@dolfuny _"who's to say we didn't fuck up heaven immediately"_ -- I think the plan is to strip us of our free will so that we are forced to worship the Kim Jong-un of heaven and can't fuck it up. Either that or dipshit just won't plant any trees in heaven. I'm not sure which.
20:36 By his own admission, God is a monster. Your choices are either love me, or you will be tortured. How is that the views of a loving "god"? That is like an individual who says, "I love you so much, I'm not going to force you to be with me. I will just place you in an iron maiden, the choice is yours, I don't want to force you to do anything......" And either Christians don't see it, or are so brainwashed, that they honestly believe that is a good thing, I don't know which is scarier.
Sounds like the morality of an obsessed incel in regards to women.
‘You have to go out with me or you are evil and I will punish you!’
Yeah remember when gods used to live on mountains, until we climb those mountains and there were no gods. Then they lived in the clouds until we invented helicopters and airplanes still no gods. Now he's out there in outer space somewhere. The closer you try to get to the invisible sky wizard the further he goes away.
Wait until we invent warp drives.
He lives in the comfort room nowadays.
You'll often hear housewives or husbands shouting "JESUS CHRIST, YOU'RE STILL THERE!?" at the top of there lungs in every cr, in every household...
They now say, "God lives outside time and space." So, he lives just where all other non-existing thing live
All the more reason to clutch tighter to the wholly book.
You can't call him a "sky wizard" anymore if he's no longer in the sky.
Physics student, when Paul talks about entropy and says T in the equation is time, its actually temperature
Excellent work Paulogia!! This is important information for the progress of humanity! Thank you Paulogia!!
The whole "can't justify..." argument is weak. There are multiple reasons to justify not killing, raping, etc. Some examples:
1. I don't enjoy it/think I'd enjoy it.
2. It makes me a target for those who perceive me as a threat.
3. The possibility exists I might need that person's help later.
I'm sure there's plenty more, but just off the cuff those 3 strike me as feasible reasons, no God/"heart writing" required.
Harming anything unnecessarily feels wrong to me. I don't even kills flies and spiders if I can catch and release them. Do we need a justification to preserve life of any variety, human or otherwise? Turek would like me to believe that his variety of god is the one responsible for my feelings, but I'm not convinced.
@@thevulture5750 I do not believe in an inherent right or wrong, no.
It appears to me that many misunderstand what it means to be objective. An objective position is one that is not influenced by personal opinion.
In the case of "objective morality", it is objectively true in most societies that there is a detrimental penalty applied should you be caught killing someone. I'm not suggesting this is morality, but rather suspecting that there is a conflation here based on the biological drive for self-preservation.
I cannot speak for everyone obviously, but I suspect that a fair bit of confusion can be attributed to this idea.
@@thevulture5750 "From a naturalistic viewpoint killing is natural."
Not necessarily. Killing for subsistence is a grey area, not that your god had an issue with blood sacrifice as it is. Or genocide.
"Whatever people do is natural, so your ideas about morality apart from God are opinion."
I feel like this is a poe, and it likely is, because I've heard this so many damn times it's nauseating.
@@thevulture5750 "God is a judge. The wages of sin is death."
That would make god a tyrant. Death isnt justice, it's revenge.
"You agree with the bombing of cities during the second world war? "
No, and that is a war crime. The bombing of industrial complexes? Yes.
"Regardless of how we feel about a statement, of people are nothing more than animals, then all of human behavior is a natural consequent of their biology."
Sure, and part of our evolution is both logic and empathy, we employ both of these as social creatures. Behavior, good or bad, is a result of biology.
@The Vulture it is all man's whim. We tend to a relatively common morality because we have learned the value of certain things. Laws themselves are just agreements. They provide an increased likelihood of survival/success while minimizing personal risk.
As I said before, there's a misrepresentation of "objective" as a definition. If I live in a society where everyone around me agrees that killers should also die, it is objectively true that getting caught killing someone will get me killed. My feelings about that fact are not relevant.
Thank you for the content. It was very well presented and informational. 👍
10:32 nope, that T is temperature, not time. Joules per Kelvin are the units of entropy. Of course, Joules is a composite unit that includes time units, so technically entropy does have time in there somewhere if you break it down.
Small correction to your point on dS = dQ/T, the T here is temperature (*thermo*dynamics and is how the maths works out) instead of time. Doesn't affect the point, as you still need time over which for things to change and for entropy to increase.
Great vid as always.
Indeed. Time is represented with t
Frank’s analogy of the woman being pursued by the man would imply that if the woman rejects the man, she experiences eternal suffering for rejecting him. Pretty messed. I love how beautifully the analogy proves the cruelty of God without even intending to.
Another excellent presentation! Thankyou!
The problem with his "pursuer" analogy is that, in his analogy, we are pursuing God, without his permission. While, what is actively preached in churches, is that God wants us to pursue him, while punishing us after we die, if we didn't...
When the religious try to use the "ontological argument", they always start off making huge assumptions, along with ignoring how Evolution explains why _most_ people have some sort of morality, ignoring that not everyone has the same moral code and forgetting that babies and very young children have to be taught much of their moral code.
These apologists have apparently never watched a toddler hit another toddler over the head in order to take their toy. Apparently "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife, or his slaves, or his animals, or anything of thy neighbor" weren't engraved deeply enough on the hearts of many young children. Or are the commandments given to Moses not part of this supposed objective moral code?
These apologists never consider the fact that in the western world genocide was considered a justified political strategy. The OT is evidence for it.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Good point; the bible shows ample examples of people with very different ideas of "morality".
Any god worthy of worship would not command it.
Paulogia, the king of intros. Delightfully funny and with perfect timing. Kudos!
As always, your notifications are a highlight to the day 👍👏 Great video
Also, free will(y)...... loved that 😄
"god loves you enough to let you choose to believe in him or not."
There's so much wrong with this claim and i wish theists would stop using it.
Aside from not even demonstrating this god exists, nowhere in the bible does it imply we have free will. In fact, there are passages within the bible that contract that idea, such as god supposedly hardening the pharaoh's heart to force a certain choice to be made.
I cannot choose whether or not i find something convincing, yet the very same god that claims to be all about love and free will is going to torture me for infinity just for not being convinced?
Frank has a very poor idea of what love is.
So does George Lucas, apparently.
I know it's a non sequitur but with him bringing up Star Wars, I couldn't resist.
If God writes morality on our hearts what about sociopaths and psychopaths? Did he mess up there? Let me guess, they know, they're just choosing to sin. 🙄
Or what about people who are on drugs who commit horrible acts under the influence? Are they choosing to sin too?
The pure fact that not EVERYTHING is objectively morally good or bad shows that objective morality is not true. Not just killing babies EVERY moral statement!
Your content is great! I loved your insights on free will! Keep up the good work!
Think of it this way, the greatest "good" this greatest being _could_ do, *is* to _force_ everyone to love him.
How messed up is that!!!
Brilliant presentation, Paul.. you just keep getting better at this, honing your craft as it's said.
If you were still a believer, I'd have to say that youve missed your calling. ;-)
I love you. I believe you exist. Thanks for sharing your presence with me Paulogia!
So good to see the hitch clips. What a deadset legend
Frank reminds me of the kid who didn't read the book for his report so has taken the cover, first and last page, then used his imagination to flesh out the rest. His cavalier notions of science are, as some psychics caveat in the fine print, should be considered 'for entertainment purposes only'.
Just on morality alone, by reading further, he may have learned there seems to be a natural phenomena where like bodies in proximity synchronizing themselves. It would make sense that isolated families or tribes would have varying stances on moral behavior, but as natural borders were crossed and intermingling occurred, waves of moral behavior would emanate from the larger groups, kingdoms and empires to encompass the outliers. While that door swings both ways in regards to immorality, natural selection would certainly give the nod to behavior that promotes cooperation via the practical advantages that are girded by the biological tendencies to moderate stress.
This simple proposition certainly has more explanatory than Frank's promiscuous teleological intuition of being written on an organ of the cardio vascular system.
Nice to see the great Christopher Hitchens in here. One of the great mysteries of the world is why Turek would ever mention his name after the massacre that was Turek v Hitchens. Turek showed up to a battle of wits unarmed. Also, Hitchens was about a liter of bourbon deep when the debate began. Turek had the confidence and swagger of general Custer….and that debate was his Little Big Horn. A decisive defeat with no survivors
Thanks for the video :)
Excellent video Paul !
I'm thirty seconds in and already laughing my ass off
"Atheists cannot justify morality" just means "I don't accept atheists' explanation for morality".
In 99% of cases when a religious apologist says that an atheist "can't" do something what he really means is that "I personally don't accept their version of it".
And quite often that "I don't accept it" means rejecting out of principle rather than via logic.
Yeah, this is just like the "Theists don't have any evidence for their god" argument. They do, it just isn't convincing evidence. Even just saying "I feel bad when I do certain things, so I don't do them" is justification for morality. But it's not our problem if the theist doesn't like that.
I like you as more than a friend, Paul!
You are the only UA-camr I would watch at 6:56am!
20:55 I'm confused. Does God give up on us before or after we die? It sounds like he keeps up the stalker routine until we die and then goes "I'll respect your wishes now".
If God is timeless, why did it take six days to create the universe?
"Second Law" doesn't require entropy to increase (just never decrease). The First Law does require energy to be eternal. So if you believe in thermodynamics, you'd have to reject the beginning.
Also all scientific laws are based on repeatable observations. At the time they are formulated, they seem to defy common sense (and the bible is always trotted out to show they can't be right until they become accepted). Human common sense fails at the extremes of our experience, the unimaginably tiny, the unimaginably large, the unimaginably fast.
Newton's laws of motion were found to NOT extend as one gets close to the speed of light. Scientific laws of the 19th century seemed to restrict the total amount of matter and the total of energy until Einstein showed one could transform into the other.
If tomorrow scientists found things that violate thermodynamics,, then new theories and new laws would be adopted - no matter how strongly the current laws of science are accepted today.
As always...one of the best!!
Nice vid Paulogia!
i would think the knowledge of heaven and hell would infringe more on our free will than just the knowledge that God exists
I can justify morality though... And the christian apologists can't justify their ever changing morality and the thousands of different moralities of different cultures, even though somehow God has written it onto everyone...
It's Satan. Satan's fault. Yep. That explains everything.
@@_Niddy_ So funny when they say it because neither does Satan exists, Satan wasn't even the bad guy in the bible and it was multiple dudes that worked for God and also weren't the snake in Genesis and Lucifer isn't Satan either and also Lucifer was punished for daring to rebel against a tyrant God. I am not sure if Lucifer is a fallen angel in the bible, but regardless, the mythology there is so messy and wrong.
Paulogia, you are great in this. Especially the way you did the beginning! LMAO!👍💙💖🥰✌
Great video!
In re: Frank's silly "persistent suitor" analogy, where God is the suitor who eventually gives up and lets you alone, the immediate outcome that I saw was that God is the suitor who threatens to kill you if you don't love him.
Frank's view is that "you can be with God or be without God; it's your choice." But God has only two destinations: Heaven (with it) or Hell (without it). Why no Elysian Fields, where we can have a comfy afterlife without God?
This thing about God being "timeless." In a state of timelessness, everything would be static - nothing could change. Therefore, God couldn't create anything because that would take time. It couldn't even think, because that would take time.
Signed up for none belief years ago , simple , uncomplicated , refreshing …. and best of all , no gods required
In the free will discussion, I don’t often hear the point brought up that we don’t get to choose what we “want”. When he says, “If you want to be with God, you will seek him,” it fails to consider the fact that we don’t have control over our desires. Like Paul said in the ice cream analogy, our choices result from a calculation of competing desires. I think that is the most crucial aspect in the free will debate.
Wait, is the T is entropy time? I am near sure it is temperature. As the units for entropy are joules per kelvin.
10:45 is time stamp
If god wrote morality on our heart, why is there different interpretations of morality? Why would modern Christianity immediately go to war with ancient Christianity?
Does Frank Turik actually think that he could go back in time and NOT be immediately be killed by his own ancestors from the stone-age?
Why didn't the ancient Christians act like modern Christians? Why did we actually have to fight to abolish slavery, against the vitriolic biblical defense of slavery from Christians that thought slavery shouldn't be abolished?
If god wrote morality on our hearts, then how does Frank Know that his interpretation is correct and the interpretations of others are incorrect?
I don't know which statement loses an argument faster:
1) Claiming the biblical flood happened or
2) Denying evolution
*_It's a very close race but either one laughs you out of any debate with an educated person!_*
That's a tough one. I'd have to say the flood concept they have, because of all of the things that groups like AIG have. Claiming things like the continents all did all their known movements during that one year's time alone is a losing argument, simply because it would release so much energy that it would turn the planet back into a molten ball of rock. Not exactly conducive to a wooden boat surviving through it.
Or that one olive tree that supposedly survived the year underwater (when water couldn't exist due to the catastrophic heat problem) from where the bird brought that olive branch. 🙄
Gutsick Gibbon does some excellent videos on that very topic, in fact. I'd suggest those. They're pretty _~bleeping~_ good!
@@MaryAnnNytowl Thanks, I'll have a look.
3:30 ish - I can "feel" that PI is about 3 and a sixth, so how would I prove it?
My problem with Frank's argument that God won't force people into HIs presence against their will is that Frank's theology suggests that the only choices are to be in God's presence or suffer eternal torment. He can't imagine any other option. In Frank's theology, God seems unwilling or unable to say, "Fine. You don't have to be in my presence. I've set up a pleasant party for you over there, away from me."