Hey! Atheist here 🎉! I love that you’re breaking down these debates afterward-it’s such a great way for people to learn along with you! I do have some thoughts to share, coming from an atheist and a trained philosopher. At 56:20 Drew, I get where you’re coming from. But let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that I granted the existence of a god (even though Doug doesn’t actually believe this). Now, if you asked me the same question, "What would make you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?” I’d probably respond like Doug: ”Its a start”. Here’s why. We already know that people can be brought back to life, like with medically induced resuscitations or cases where the body resuscitates naturally. So why believe in those natural explanations and not in God? Because I have firsthand experience with natural causes for these kinds of events. While this doesn’t prove it wasn’t God, it also doesn’t give me any reason to think it was God. Instead, I’d need to rule out all natural explanations before considering a supernatural one. This is what skepticism means in a more formal sense. It’s important to remember that there’s a difference between being skeptical in casual conversation-like chatting with friends-and being skeptical in a debate or philosophical setting. I think this distinction is often missed or misunderstood, especially in contexts like this with someone as well-read as Doug. Skepticism isn’t just about one thing-it’s tied to a bunch of concepts, like induction, hypothesis testing (the scientific method), and the ideas of sufficient and necessary reasoning. These are all parts of what it means to think skeptically. Here check these out: Britannica - Good for getting familiar with the basics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - More detailed and goes deeper into the concepts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The toughest of the three, and also links to original philosophical articles, most of which you can read for free on JSTOR. These sources take you from intro to pro level and cover pretty much everything you’d need! I want to make it clear: skepticism isn’t an atheistic position. It’s a methodological position. For example, William Lane Craig, who is well-versed in logical reasoning, has said, "I ultimately learned that Christians do not have to strawman science, and scientists do not have to strawman religion." - - peacefulscience.org/articles/wlc-schooled-evolution/ Skepticism, as we understand it today, is very much tied to Christian scholars like Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas. Although Hume and Kant weren’t particularly outspoken about their beliefs, they maintained them until their passing. Trust me! You are not going to sow any seeds by not understanding the fundamentals in this setting. To do that, you need to understand where they are coming from. And also-you’ll have an advantage, most atheists don’t know these things themselves. But a guy like Doug definitely does! He’s toying with you and making you look foolish. I’m not saying that as an insult by any means! Braxon Hunter 58:28 , you mentioned a modern-day resurrection that someone witnessed! However, I wouldn’t recommend taking that approach. First of all, back to skepticism: how have we ruled out natural explanations? Secondly, let’s say we were to accept this claim; the principle you’re using in this case is hear say. Now, this isn’t me trying to be condescending! However, you would need to accept the same thing from Doug in that case. People say they’ve seen aliens and such-so you need to be consistent with the principles you use. I understand you believe in God, and for you, it’s within the realm of possibility. However, this is precisely what you’re debating. I would recommend looking into William Lane Craig, Trent Horn, or Gavin Ortlund. These guys are very good! But please, you need to understand thier arguments as well! Avoid doing a mimic version! I see atheists doing this too often, and when they get caught, it becomes embarrassing. Also! At 58:20, be careful mixing the politics of today with your religion. That usually doesn’t end very well, I would say. Your point about focusing on creation is the better way to go. If that could be made reasonable, a resurrection does seem like a minor thing! Guys! 1:04:30 , You need to understand the atheistic perspective on this one. Saying that God can save and heal implies that God could have saved and could have healed people, which He has not done in all case even if it was true. Think about it: aren’t you trying to convince him or the listener of your view? That entails them understanding where you’re coming from. But if you can’t understand how they think or view things, how can you ever convince them? Now, I understand that you see this differently on an emotional level, and if someone brings that up, you should absolutely express your side. But you’re walking right into this one! You’re setting yourself up to defend all kinds of things that you might need to do anyway, but it will be them bringing it up. If they do, just say that you don’t accept the premise. If they bring up God like this, you can ask, "Are you claiming to know that God doesn’t exist?" If they say yes, then they have the burden of proof! Drew! 1:20:38 , there’s a difference between being convinced of something and actually liking the thing you’re convinced of. The same goes the other way: saying that heaven seems like a more pleasant thing to believe in-while I would agree that it is-is not an argument that it actually is true. Now, if you want to do some Pascal's wager, that’s another thing, but don’t rely on what you would like to be true. Remember, that’s what’s on the table here. Those arguments are, I would say, more about evangelism than a debate format which this is. By the way, he is messing with you. He’s leading you away from the argument at hand. Also, don’t assume he has layers of doubt or that he doesn’t want to believe. Take him seriously; that is, take him at his word. He is not convinced by the claim that God exists. That’s the reason, I must assume that myself, as I can not read minds, and atheists say they don’t believe. If you treat this as something else, I don’t think you’re going to be as effective as you could be. It wont be to your fauvor. Hope this helps!
Store the body in a morgue for 3 days first. How many "first hand examples" do you have of one of those bodies "naturally resuscitating", or even being attempted to? Bad analogy
@ No, it’s not a bad analogy. We use particular drugs or resuscitation techniques which demonstrable work. And we can explain it through the biological process of the body. We don’t have any evidence of the supernatural being responsible. Which makes the argument bad. If you don’t have a reliable method or reliable evidence then it isn’t a good counter argument.
@ Are you saying his friend resuscitated a person who was clinically dead in the morgue for three days? That would be quite a thing. If so there should be medical records for it. But you still have the issue of excluding natural causes.
"If you've never been bored, then you're the one who's boring" - my uncle used to say the opposite of this. If you're bored, it's because you're boring. As for me I definitely never worry about eternal life being boring, but then my favorite food hasn't changed since childhood so maybe I'm built different.
I really do hate PineCreeks questions because they are not based in reality. "If all you had were Paul's letters would you be a Christian today?" To that my answer is, "I don't know because I had more than Paul's letters so I am unable to know what I would do in that situation." Or him talking about Jesus could have died for nothing is not based in reality. There are millions of people who have believed so there is no point to the question at all. Maybe someone could ask him, "what is your point in asking this question...what are you seeking in your question?" Loved this segment with your guests! Thank you
1:08:53 This sounds reminiscent of what Drew has talked about on the channel before - his daughter was miraculously saved after much prayer, while other children of friends were not, despite much prayer. It seems like an easy position to find oneself bitter towards God if it's your kid who didn't make it.
the issue in Provision-ism is it still holds to OSAS so just do all the adultery you want I guess, since according to 2 Peter 2 says God will spare the Adulterer in v14.... no it does not say that showing Provision-ism is still a false teaching.
Well, the question is, are we sealed with the Spirit until the day of redemption or are we not? As far as using forgiveness, as a means to have a license to sin, I would say you’re not truly a born again saved individual.
Well.in regards to OSAS and the issue with Adultery as an example. So let's take Jesus stance on that. If a man looks at a woman with lust he has done it. Or If a man says I hate you you have murdered them. Tell me how many times have you done that? Did you confess all them. If you base your salvation on how well you are doing you are trusting in your self and not the finished work on the cross. There is no synergy God sent Jesus as a reconciliation. If you want to put yourself under the law you will be judged by the law and you trample God's provision underfoot. It means you don't understand why Jesus came. Now here this. Jesus paid for all our sin past present and future. So if you understand what Jesus has done why would you want to sin? This is the whole interlocking fact in the new testament. That we are sinners and can't save ourselves. As soon as we try and prove we put ourselves under the law. Now for the forfeiting your salvation. Well although technically possible it is an impossibility just like it won't be possible to sin in heaven. Why because if you do understand that you can't save yourself and you need your saviour why would you give that up? Not to mention the fact you are sealed and regenerated. Would God undo that?
@@peterfox7663I think provisionism used to not take a position on OSAS, but it seens to have leaned more on it over time, especially as the acrostic got m9re specific over time.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Here we go with more of the same. It was a YT chat section. You have to be brief with what you say. You know exactly what I was trying to say, and I know that you know what I was trying to say. You say you're a monergist but you're actually a synergist. That is the point of contention. It doesn't bother me in the least whatsoever because I'm not a believer.I'm just merely calling a spade a spade.
@@Hello_there-7pt * brief *and precise*. Have you considered that as an unbeliever your comments on this might lack the nuance and precision so as to actually be a *true* criticism? How are you understanding what a “synergist” is anyways?
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Again, you're just playing the semantics card to avoid the real issue. And your response and everyone else's was inappropriate and immature. I personally would be embarrassed if I acted that way online.
what are you talking about Brexton ? Drew's defense of Christianity was a massive failure, and I am saying it with love for all my brothers and sisters in Christ. Pinecreeck left feeling like he just furhter proved his position instead of leaving with doubts about his atheism. again, I am saying this with love.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective no, I doubt anything will, unless holy spirit slaps him, but you have to admit that you didnt do a good job explaining yourself. let me remove the gigantic, because that was an exaggaration. look, I am not attacking you personally, but I really dislike when we as Christians, instead of admitting our fault, look for excuses. Brexton's "you did a fantastic job" is ridiculous, I am sorry, its just not true.
As soon as salvation through jesus evwn started to be a thing, there was ZERO chance no one was getting saved... why? Because there were already vast numbers of OT saints who died in faith awaiting Gods means of salvation... the obly new variable was Jesus himself doing the work. And in Jesus's own lifetime ge already cultivated a following of those who already believed. So before Jesus even ascended he had over 500 living saved followers, and an unknown (to us) of saved OR saints. So he already had a fully consumated his task victoriously even if the expansion of the church in Acts was a bust. What if Christ came back in 70 AD, and history of fallen man ended then and there, and only those who professed at that time were saved for eternity... right? Ok. So instead of billions in eternity theres what, maybe 5 million people? Saving 5 million people is still way more than left Egypt, or were in the Ark, or in Abrahams household, or the Garden. In short, while i agree there's some risk, theres no risk of failure, only risk that the victors are fewer than could be, not that failure is an option. God's GOING to win no matter what, and hes had followes the whole time, from the beginning.
Hey! Atheist here 🎉! I love that you’re breaking down these debates afterward-it’s such a great way for people to learn along with you! I do have some thoughts to share, coming from an atheist and a trained philosopher.
At 56:20 Drew, I get where you’re coming from. But let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that I granted the existence of a god (even though Doug doesn’t actually believe this).
Now, if you asked me the same question, "What would make you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?” I’d probably respond like Doug: ”Its a start”. Here’s why. We already know that people can be brought back to life, like with medically induced resuscitations or cases where the body resuscitates naturally.
So why believe in those natural explanations and not in God? Because I have firsthand experience with natural causes for these kinds of events. While this doesn’t prove it wasn’t God, it also doesn’t give me any reason to think it was God. Instead, I’d need to rule out all natural explanations before considering a supernatural one. This is what skepticism means in a more formal sense.
It’s important to remember that there’s a difference between being skeptical in casual conversation-like chatting with friends-and being skeptical in a debate or philosophical setting. I think this distinction is often missed or misunderstood, especially in contexts like this with someone as well-read as Doug.
Skepticism isn’t just about one thing-it’s tied to a bunch of concepts, like induction, hypothesis testing (the scientific method), and the ideas of sufficient and necessary reasoning. These are all parts of what it means to think skeptically.
Here check these out:
Britannica - Good for getting familiar with the basics.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - More detailed and goes deeper into the concepts.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The toughest of the three, and also links to original philosophical articles, most of which you can read for free on JSTOR.
These sources take you from intro to pro level and cover pretty much everything you’d need!
I want to make it clear: skepticism isn’t an atheistic position. It’s a methodological position. For example, William Lane Craig, who is well-versed in logical reasoning, has said, "I ultimately learned that Christians do not have to strawman science, and scientists do not have to strawman religion." - - peacefulscience.org/articles/wlc-schooled-evolution/
Skepticism, as we understand it today, is very much tied to Christian scholars like Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas. Although Hume and Kant weren’t particularly outspoken about their beliefs, they maintained them until their passing.
Trust me! You are not going to sow any seeds by not understanding the fundamentals in this setting. To do that, you need to understand where they are coming from. And also-you’ll have an advantage, most atheists don’t know these things themselves. But a guy like Doug definitely does! He’s toying with you and making you look foolish. I’m not saying that as an insult by any means!
Braxon Hunter 58:28 , you mentioned a modern-day resurrection that someone witnessed! However, I wouldn’t recommend taking that approach. First of all, back to skepticism: how have we ruled out natural explanations? Secondly, let’s say we were to accept this claim; the principle you’re using in this case is hear say. Now, this isn’t me trying to be condescending! However, you would need to accept the same thing from Doug in that case. People say they’ve seen aliens and such-so you need to be consistent with the principles you use.
I understand you believe in God, and for you, it’s within the realm of possibility. However, this is precisely what you’re debating. I would recommend looking into William Lane Craig, Trent Horn, or Gavin Ortlund. These guys are very good! But please, you need to understand thier arguments as well! Avoid doing a mimic version! I see atheists doing this too often, and when they get caught, it becomes embarrassing. Also! At 58:20, be careful mixing the politics of today with your religion. That usually doesn’t end very well, I would say. Your point about focusing on creation is the better way to go. If that could be made reasonable, a resurrection does seem like a minor thing!
Guys! 1:04:30 , You need to understand the atheistic perspective on this one. Saying that God can save and heal implies that God could have saved and could have healed people, which He has not done in all case even if it was true. Think about it: aren’t you trying to convince him or the listener of your view? That entails them understanding where you’re coming from. But if you can’t understand how they think or view things, how can you ever convince them? Now, I understand that you see this differently on an emotional level, and if someone brings that up, you should absolutely express your side.
But you’re walking right into this one! You’re setting yourself up to defend all kinds of things that you might need to do anyway, but it will be them bringing it up. If they do, just say that you don’t accept the premise. If they bring up God like this, you can ask, "Are you claiming to know that God doesn’t exist?" If they say yes, then they have the burden of proof!
Drew! 1:20:38 , there’s a difference between being convinced of something and actually liking the thing you’re convinced of. The same goes the other way: saying that heaven seems like a more pleasant thing to believe in-while I would agree that it is-is not an argument that it actually is true. Now, if you want to do some Pascal's wager, that’s another thing, but don’t rely on what you would like to be true. Remember, that’s what’s on the table here. Those arguments are, I would say, more about evangelism than a debate format which this is.
By the way, he is messing with you. He’s leading you away from the argument at hand. Also, don’t assume he has layers of doubt or that he doesn’t want to believe. Take him seriously; that is, take him at his word. He is not convinced by the claim that God exists. That’s the reason, I must assume that myself, as I can not read minds, and atheists say they don’t believe. If you treat this as something else, I don’t think you’re going to be as effective as you could be. It wont be to your fauvor.
Hope this helps!
Store the body in a morgue for 3 days first.
How many "first hand examples" do you have of one of those bodies "naturally resuscitating", or even being attempted to?
Bad analogy
@ No, it’s not a bad analogy. We use particular drugs or resuscitation techniques which demonstrable work. And we can explain it through the biological process of the body.
We don’t have any evidence of the supernatural being responsible. Which makes the argument bad. If you don’t have a reliable method or reliable evidence then it isn’t a good counter argument.
@ Are you saying his friend resuscitated a person who was clinically dead in the morgue for three days? That would be quite a thing. If so there should be medical records for it. But you still have the issue of excluding natural causes.
"If you've never been bored, then you're the one who's boring" - my uncle used to say the opposite of this. If you're bored, it's because you're boring.
As for me I definitely never worry about eternal life being boring, but then my favorite food hasn't changed since childhood so maybe I'm built different.
I really do hate PineCreeks questions because they are not based in reality. "If all you had were Paul's letters would you be a Christian today?" To that my answer is, "I don't know because I had more than Paul's letters so I am unable to know what I would do in that situation." Or him talking about Jesus could have died for nothing is not based in reality. There are millions of people who have believed so there is no point to the question at all. Maybe someone could ask him, "what is your point in asking this question...what are you seeking in your question?"
Loved this segment with your guests! Thank you
@@sharonlouise9759 thanks!! No one is watching this one so 😅
1:08:53 This sounds reminiscent of what Drew has talked about on the channel before - his daughter was miraculously saved after much prayer, while other children of friends were not, despite much prayer. It seems like an easy position to find oneself bitter towards God if it's your kid who didn't make it.
Why can’t I download?
Download what?
Can’t thank you enough for this follow up.
@@bencausey I’m so glad you enjoyed it! When we go off script like this we really have no idea how it will be received!
my four favorite UA-camrs!
No Christians are Monergists, All Christians are Synergist.
What do you mean by "synergist"?
If nobody believed, Jesus would have still accomplished what he set out to do. Like John 18:37 says, He came to bear witness of the truth.
Some how I missed this.
Probably Drew's fault.
the issue in Provision-ism is it still holds to OSAS so just do all the adultery you want I guess, since according to 2 Peter 2 says God will spare the Adulterer in v14.... no it does not say that showing Provision-ism is still a false teaching.
Well, the question is, are we sealed with the Spirit until the day of redemption or are we not?
As far as using forgiveness, as a means to have a license to sin, I would say you’re not truly a born again saved individual.
No, Provisionism doesn't take a position on OSAS other than a person must be a believer to be saved (in other words, it does not affirm Free Grace)
Well.in regards to OSAS and the issue with Adultery as an example.
So let's take Jesus stance on that.
If a man looks at a woman with lust he has done it.
Or
If a man says I hate you you have murdered them.
Tell me how many times have you done that? Did you confess all them.
If you base your salvation on how well you are doing you are trusting in your self and not the finished work on the cross.
There is no synergy God sent Jesus as a reconciliation.
If you want to put yourself under the law you will be judged by the law and you trample God's provision underfoot.
It means you don't understand why Jesus came.
Now here this.
Jesus paid for all our sin past present and future.
So if you understand what Jesus has done why would you want to sin?
This is the whole interlocking fact in the new testament. That we are sinners and can't save ourselves.
As soon as we try and prove we put ourselves under the law.
Now for the forfeiting your salvation.
Well although technically possible it is an impossibility just like it won't be possible to sin in heaven.
Why because if you do understand that you can't save yourself and you need your saviour why would you give that up?
Not to mention the fact you are sealed and regenerated.
Would God undo that?
@@peterfox7663I think provisionism used to not take a position on OSAS, but it seens to have leaned more on it over time, especially as the acrostic got m9re specific over time.
@@ravissary79 no, it does not take a position, nor does the acrostic take a position on it
That was a very immature response to my comment from everyone except Braxton.
Your response wasn’t even remotely touching on any kind of point of contention among us.
Do you not believe mankind is responsible to believe?
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Here we go with more of the same. It was a YT chat section. You have to be brief with what you say. You know exactly what I was trying to say, and I know that you know what I was trying to say. You say you're a monergist but you're actually a synergist. That is the point of contention. It doesn't bother me in the least whatsoever because I'm not a believer.I'm just merely calling a spade a spade.
@@Hello_there-7pt * brief *and precise*.
Have you considered that as an unbeliever your comments on this might lack the nuance and precision so as to actually be a *true* criticism?
How are you understanding what a “synergist” is anyways?
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Again, you're just playing the semantics card to avoid the real issue. And your response and everyone else's was inappropriate and immature. I personally would be embarrassed if I acted that way online.
what are you talking about Brexton ? Drew's defense of Christianity was a massive failure, and I am saying it with love for all my brothers and sisters in Christ. Pinecreeck left feeling like he just furhter proved his position instead of leaving with doubts about his atheism. again, I am saying this with love.
Once upon a time, Doug had call ins every Thursday from theists. That’s when I did it. I’d love to see you cause him to doubt his atheism, genuinely.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective no, I doubt anything will, unless holy spirit slaps him, but you have to admit that you didnt do a good job explaining yourself. let me remove the gigantic, because that was an exaggaration. look, I am not attacking you personally, but I really dislike when we as Christians, instead of admitting our fault, look for excuses. Brexton's "you did a fantastic job" is ridiculous, I am sorry, its just not true.
As soon as salvation through jesus evwn started to be a thing, there was ZERO chance no one was getting saved... why? Because there were already vast numbers of OT saints who died in faith awaiting Gods means of salvation... the obly new variable was Jesus himself doing the work.
And in Jesus's own lifetime ge already cultivated a following of those who already believed.
So before Jesus even ascended he had over 500 living saved followers, and an unknown (to us) of saved OR saints.
So he already had a fully consumated his task victoriously even if the expansion of the church in Acts was a bust.
What if Christ came back in 70 AD, and history of fallen man ended then and there, and only those who professed at that time were saved for eternity... right?
Ok. So instead of billions in eternity theres what, maybe 5 million people?
Saving 5 million people is still way more than left Egypt, or were in the Ark, or in Abrahams household, or the Garden.
In short, while i agree there's some risk, theres no risk of failure, only risk that the victors are fewer than could be, not that failure is an option. God's GOING to win no matter what, and hes had followes the whole time, from the beginning.