Ricky Gervais Strikes Again
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лют 2024
- What Ricky Gervais is saying here is simultaneously impressive and rather empty. One must recognize that Christianity doesn't claim to be discoverable through repeated experiments. Nor are the truth claims of Christianity dependent on their discoverability through the same means that gravity is discovered. Saying we wouldn't rediscover Christianity through natural sciences is about as impressive as saying we wouldn't discover that chocolate tastes good through geological research. So what?
God can be discovered through creation but the details about the gospel and the death and resurrection of Christ are only made public through direct revelation. Interestingly, we happen to live in a world where exactly that has happened.
My website BibleThinker.org
If we destroyed all books, the books about historical figures, even those who lived only 100 years ago, would be gone. Does that mean they didn’t exist? Mike’s right, the statement sounds clever but proves nothing.
"His point is quite simple. If we forget about history and culture, they won't come back. However, the laws of physics and chemistry will remain the same. An advanced civilization would be able to comprehend them without the need for divine intervention.
However, the same cannot be said for theology. If Christianity or any other religion is true, then God would need to intervene for us to return to following the Bible and Jesus.
While his point is valid, the comparison between theology and physics is not fair. He is comparing apples to oranges."
cause what ricky is saying is common sense
edit-
@DM-dk7js
AGREED
Yeah, it's a confusion of category and importance. Just because some knowledge is contingent, does not mean it's less valuable. There are probably numerous works of history destroyed that could've helped people live better lives and maybe even good insight into the world that cannot be recovered. However, that does not make them any less valuable than ideas that can actually be rediscovered generations later. In fact, it would seem that we should keep the more contingent works of knowledge more cherished and protected in light of Gervais' point.
@@Ghost-pb4ts Yes, physics and chemistry would remain, but so would God. The text books would not re-write themselves. It would take an intelligent agent to do so. The same would be true of the Bible.
That’s not analogous to what he’s saying is it?
He’s saying religious texts from culture to culture differ, meaning theism can take radically different views sometimes. It is dogmatic after all.
That isn’t the case for science, as good science will be repeatable and yield the same results.
He isn’t saying erasing a book about George Washington means George Washington didn’t exist lol. He’s saying science is repeatable and objective, whereas religions differ and are dogmatic.
yeah i also forgot the context cause he only showed us the clip
you cant forke physics and chemistry to your needs but religion can have infinite interpretations @@DM-dk7js
Untrue. Science books until 2016 could define what a woman was.
Lmao this one is funny
Nice
😂😂😂
You’ll find Richard Dawkins one of your closest allies on that front.
Science can define what a woman is. Society is having trouble with how to define it.
It's funny because earlier in that same interview he said that if you can't prove something then he won't believe it. Then he turns around and states as fact something that has never once been tested. The only reason someone would agree with what he said is if they assume beforehand that religion, Christianity specifically, isn't true
doh!
Also scientists argue about what their "facts are" all of the time, science isn't always constantly proved (proven) all of the time. Gravity is in fact simply a theory based on our limited understanding of life on earth, with changes in how it functions depending on many factors. Our understanding of physics is changing all of the time. Thinking that science is completely solidified with Empirical facts alone, and are simple discoveries made whenever people look at things objectively, while Christianity is not, is completely erroneous. In Gervais' hypothetical, a world in which everything is erased and starts over, is a completely different universe. Who could possibly know what a completely different universe would be like? Ricky Gervais' hypothetical universe, and his conclusion based on it, are hypothetical, therefore untested and unprovable, just like Atheists say Christianity is. He's created his own religion, and his own God, and that is this weird incorrect view of "Science."
Doh!@@charlesqbanks
@@charlesqbanks “Gravity is in fact simply a theory “. A scientific theory is not the same as a guess or hypothesis. A scientific theory, like gravity, is a well substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Gravity is a fact, a law and a theory.
@@horridhenry9920
But they still don’t understand it!
That’s the point science can and does point to some theoretical truth but only through philosophical ideas that religious beliefs gave idea too!
Ricky Gervais is arrogant and really knows very little maybe nothing about God and truth!
He likes his own kingdom, where he is god!
My dad has quoted a good quote that 'when scientists get to the top of the mountain of the meaning of existence they will find the theologians sitting there already'.
Science is not trying to find the meaning of life
@@nsinkov Exactly. That was a stupid thing to say, OP.
theologians are at the bottom of the mountain claiming the mountain doesnt exist
If we destroyed history books, we'd lose that information too. It doesn't mean it's unimportant.
or that it's false. Great point!
Corect. Not only the repeatable things are true.
This is the best science Straight from the first two chapters;
Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter!
The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin!
First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview EXPLAINS ENTROPY -The 2nd LAW AT ALL, let alone the first law of thermodynamics!
So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here; Right out the gate!
DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA genome, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“.
John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“!
God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there!
Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job!
3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing!
The Bible Predicted telecommunications
Good thing nobody said otherwise.
@@DM-dk7js Care to explain your point?
His argument is flawed anyway. Science doesn't always prove science. Things change in the science world all of time so to say the texts would all come back the same isn't true.
Like the moon is "in our atmosphere" now because NASA admits they can't go beyond low earth orbit
Totally agree…there is a lot Science doesn’t know or understand everything, as they admit and they change hypothesis and theories as they learn more.
I can guarantee if science was erased and came back later…it would totally vindicate Gods word as truth!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Ricky Gervais!
that's because many things are called 'science' which do not in fact employ the scientific method. human psychology, for example.
now rat psychology we have plenty of actual science on, but such controlled experiments on humans would be both unethical and impractical.
Case in point: my mothers science textbook taught that Piltdown Man was evidence of intermediary species between ape and man.
I was just coming to say that!
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Thank you for the compliment.
You don't like people?
@@annie-v_z-from Lord of the Rings quote
Is it your 111th birthday?
Tolkien ..a genius. Lol. Love that how it keeps you chewing on it trying to unsnarl the word salad
The difference is as if letters you received from a loved one were destroyed. The letters may not be there anymore but that doesn’t negate the fact that these were written or that the relationship was destroyed or that the relationship never happened.
And if all records of WW2 were destroyed, in 1000 years people would know nothing of it. Still happened though. Such a poor argument Ricky makes.
@rylie5584 Good analogy. Gervais's argument could be used to dismiss all of history. Just because we don't have the documents to say that "X happened" doesn't mean X didn't happen.
@@sidwhiting665problem is that’s not even remotely close to what he said.
@@sidwhiting665 He's not talking about history he's talking about science. We have indeed lost a lot to history because records are lost. If we talked about gravity though, even if we never knew who Newton was, or anything about the enlightenment, we would still come to the conclusion that gravity exists. So moving to history, Habermas often uses the Caesar who lived during Jesus as a comparative, saying we have more manuscripts for Jesus' life than other historical figures we take as fact. The issue with that is no one believes the writing for Caesar Augustus is irevutable, so if we find out info about him is inaccurate, we just ignore that info and move on. If a person points out a flaw in the Bible, no Christian would admit that and change their views because their entire life hinges around them being right, and if the Bible truly was in error, your entire worldview crumbles. That's why Gervais thinks there's nothing scientific about the bible. The holes in the Bible exist, yet no Christian admits it.
I would have to say that your conclusion is not true regarding Christianity finding errors within the Bible and holding them regardless of the facts. The theological branch of textual criticism, which ignited in the later part of the 18th century, found many texts that had little or questionable reliability. Today you will find footnotes regarding the most up to date knowledge of those texts. Many new translations do not even include some passages because there is sufficient consensus that they were not in the oldest and or most reliable original texts available. On the other side, with regards to archaeology, for example, the Bible is proven to be correct more often than not regarding historical events or facts, when new historical documents or artifacts with inscriptions etc. are discovered. This is important because it demonstrates the historical roots of the Judeo/Christian writings. This doesn't get much coverage in mainstream culture though. You have to dig a bit. @@peskymenplops
Gervais, like many people today, refer to “science” as if it is some personified entity, failing to recognize that “science” literally means “knowledge.” Furthermore, science is a methodology and process that has - at bottom - the presuppositions that our senses and rational minds are basically reliable and the world that we observe is relatively constant and consistent in everyone’s experience. Those are HUGE philosophical assumptions that the secular atheist must be prepared to defend. We have our own presuppositions, to be sure. Just don’t let the atheists and agnostics bully you into thinking that they have somehow reached a point of neutrally and objectively evaluating the world. Everyone’s got a worldview 🤷🏼♂️
Yeah I mean, if you assume your brain doesn’t work you are functionally crippled and unable to do anything.
So that alternative sucks. I’ll stick with assuming…..my brain works.
@@DM-dk7js yes it's a fine assumption to make, but in the materialist atheists' worldview, they actually have reason to DISbelieve that their brains more or less accurately represent the world as it exists objectively. All that an atheist can reasonably assume is that their brain functions sufficiently enough for them to survive. For all any atheist knows, their brain is constructing a fake reality for them to experience that has no bearing or connection to the actual reality they live in. So athiests assume that their brains work, but then go on to use that brain to construct a worldview which gives them reason NOT to make that assumption in the first place. See how self-defeating that is?
The scientific method cannot be proven using the scientific method. The only thing a microscope can't put under its scrutiny is itself. And mankind's efforts to analyze the self is akin to making oneself crosseyed in an effort to examine the brain.
Religious people ALSO make the same assumptions. We all have the SAME assumptions to start with. Then religious people stick "gods" in there too, with no justification at all and hope nobody notices. We notice, you need to justify it.
_"Furthermore, science is a methodology and process that has - at bottom - the presuppositions that our senses and rational minds are basically reliable and the world that we observe is relatively constant and consistent in everyone’s experience."_
You got it completely wrong. And I suspect you got it wrong deliberately in order to muddy the waters. Because the consistency in the world is not a presupposition. It is what we observe. And if there are scientific findings that are inconsistent to previous findings then science needs to resolve that. Which incidentally is exactly part of the scientific method.
You - by your very confused worldview - wants to suggest that we know nothing and that our observations fundamentally are not (and can't be) reliable. But as others already pointed out: This claim falls right back onto your own feet. Under your own presuppositions you are in no position to make any reliable claim at all.
You can burn every book but the truth never changes. God has written his laws on our hearts. It can not be destroyed.
Amen!
And everybody’s responsible to God for that reason!
@@jjphank yep
If that were the case then every culture would end up with a very similar religion. But they don't. Their religions are very, very different.
@@mr.mediocregamer9653 there is absolutely no reason to believe that is true.
I pray he receives humility, and God get the glory.
Science books are changing all the time
Your point is?
@@davidfiler7439 That they wouldn't be the same in a thousand years.
Dear LORD you CAN'T be THAT daft!
@@davidfiler7439 His point is is that Ricky is mistaken in his claim that if you got rid of all the science books they would all come back the same.
Unfortunately it's changing at such a pace that it's often not updated in text books and critical thinking is no longer encouraged or taught as thoroughly. First reply for instance.
yep, and they only change when there is evidence. Funny how christianity is changing all of the time based on what some idiot claims an imaignary being told them.
It's a miracle that the universe is comprehensible.
Wasn’t expecting to see you in the comment section here! So happy to know you’re a brother in Christ!
@Blast335pokemineblox You took the words right out of my mouth! Glad he's part of the Body!
No. It isn’t. It’s natural.
@jsWhy do you say that? Why should the universe have to be comprehensible? Why should the rules it operates by be consistent? These aren't rhetorical questions, I genuinely wish to know the rationale behind your belief that it is natural for the universe to be able to be understood.
@@DM-dk7js It's natural (from our dimensional viewpoint) and also a miracle. It's inconceivable why or how anything exists at all, the questions are never ending. It's like our brains are designed to seek an ultimate answer, who is Christ.
Mike Winger. Thank you so much for your ministry. Your ministry did not lead me to Christ however it has shaped my walk. I grew up Assemblies of God. They have 16 fundamentals of faith they hold to. You have taught me that my doctrines must be shown in scripture and if its not clearly taught in scripture i should either abandon that doctrine or at the very least hold it loosely. And i cant tell you how much that has done for my walk. Thank you.
my immediate thought when Ricky said that was "what about history?"
what if all the records of historical events suddenly disappeared? those would also not be rediscovered, but it doesn't mean that they aren't true.
That is not what Ricky is saying.
“I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”
- Bilbo Baggins
The whole point of the scientific method is to test assumptions and observations to arrive at the closest approximation of the truth with the available evidence. This means that science disproves “science” all the time. AND even when that happens (trans) some people will hold to their version of “science” rather than the evidential results. You know what that is? Scientism-a religion in its own right.
Care to give an example? Deeper into the trans example ?
@@DM-dk7jssure, science says there are 2 genders, while Science (capital S) says there are 100+ genders...
"Some people" holding on to "their version" of science has no bearing whatsoever on the usefulness of the scientific method for discovering truth.
Ricky gave us “The Office” and that’s a pretty funny show. He should have stopped while he was ahead 😂😂😂
He gave us the British Office which is more cringey than anything else.
@@stevej71393 they are both pretty cringey. Pretty sure Ricky wrote the pilot and is a producer for the American version.
I think "Derek" is the best thing he ever gave us. He's a great comedian, terrible philosopher.
@@GameOn0827equally good philosopher. He is correct after all.
@@DM-dk7js you watch a lot of Christian content for an Atheist. You a bot? Or just a troll.
“I know more than half of you, half as well as I would like. And I like less than half of you, half as well as you deserve.” I think 🤷. Love the reference Mike.
If we destroyed any trace of the movie The Godfather, we would never be able to discover it again as it was. The Godfather must have never existed by that logic.
😊 I like your logic, fun example! 🐴
No, he is saying the religion would not return the same way. The aspects recorded by science would. Light would still go the same speed and chemical reactions would still be the same. Don't say stupid stuff.
Not what he said.
If all traces of the Godfather were destroyed, but the people who made the movie were still alive, the movie could easily be recreated. If the Bible is destroyed, God can restore it if he pleases.
@@DM-dk7js wrote "Not what he said."
Ok you win. But every single time humanity becomes sophisticated enough to count the number of electrons in an atom of sodium, they are going to find there are 11 of them. If they lost that ability, and then found it later, the number would be the same. If religions went away, the religions replacing them would not include Krishna, Jesus or Muhamad. It is a pretty simple idea.
I find Ricky Gervais hilarious but often found his position and arguments towards faith to be so arrogant 😂
Of course you do, you've been programmed to believe that you are immortal and important, that the universe exists through magic and does so purely for your exploitation alone, but only if you grovel to one particular Bronze Age peasant's ignorant fantasy and grift.
Gervais is very solidified in his position because his livelihood depends on it. He makes his money mocking things using cheap shots and vulgarity. While some of his insights are profoundly true, in the end his brand of comedy is profane. One of his most famous TV bits ever--the mockery of the Golden Globes--could have still happened, but he's have had to censor over half of what he said if he believed Christianity were true and he put his faith in Christ.
Could he clean up his act and still be a great comedian? Absolutely! But I don't think he wants to. He, like so many others, wants to be the captain of his soul.
I find him repulsive
So?@@Rikusm1
understand that comedy is based on exaggeration. It's based on logical fallacies, particularly strawmen. Comedic distortions of reality. Comedians have this habit of trying to make a serious point while making a joke, not realizaing they're still using these logical fallacies and ridiculously unrealistic comparisons they use to make jokes, and sheepishly attempt to apply it to reality. It just doesn't work.
I love these 5-9 minute videos. Please do more of these
No! More 4hr videos!
Psalm 14 - "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."
Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Thank you Pastor Mike. ❤ Australia 🇦🇺
Thank you Mike for serving God as you do. You are so helpful to my Christian growth.
if a miraculous work of God brought us the scriptures the first time, God could easily do it again.
If. But they were just the scribbles of men long gone. New scriptures might appear, but they wouldn't be those.
Too many people have the impression that science is a belief system applicable to all the nuances of life. It’s a process that tests hypotheses by observing phenomena in the physical world.
But that doesn't suit their agenda, they need to insist that it is a belief system so they can mock it. Not realising that it also mocks their own faith system.
Great response! When you said that science relies on the idea that we live in an orderly universe, that really shook me. I never noticed that but it's so true.
Science relies on that "idea" because there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything different. There is no evidence that the laws of physics have ever been different. If you want to refute that assumption, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the EVIDENCE. Why assume that which is not in evidence? Only religitards do that.
Would not the situation he has proposed be the test for whether a religion is true or not? The issue is he makes the assumption it's not true without actually considering that it could be true. Because would not a real God ensure the knowledge of them remains?
Exactly, it's basically a circular argument using a hidden assumption.
"Because would not a real God ensure the knowledge of them remains?" Well he hasn't ensured this knowledge even exists in the first place. And why would you assume what gods want anyway??
@@lil-al You're making the same assumption and committing the same logical flaw as Gervais. If you assume that religious texts are false, you unsurprisingly conclude that they're false. But let's instead assume for the sake of argument that what the Bible claims for itself is true. Then the first of your claims falls flat - the knowledge of God is there. Now it's still u p to the individual what to do with it. You can believe it, you can distort it (and thus we get other religions), you can ignore or reject it. But the knowledge of God is there and available to humanity, if they're prepared to accept it. And this also breaks your second argument - we don't have to *assume* what God wants, because we *know* from that revealed knowledge, even the fact that there *is* revealed knowledge tells us quite a lot.
Note that there's nothing in this argument that's specific to Christianity. You can change "Bible" to "Koran" without breaking the logic. Thus it's not an argument for Christianity in preference to other religions, but it is a dismissal of Gervais' very flawed argument.
@@user-rf9mx4qf7z You are assuming god wrote it therefore what is written is reliable information about god. Sorry, but that is religitard stupidity.
You can bury the workmen, but the work will go on. You can silence the voices, but you can't stop this song. When the spirit is moving His will will be done.
-Unspoken
Love love this comment!
But that isn't true. If the bible were gone, along with the people who wrote it, it could never come back. Men wrote it. Long dead men.
Thanks Mike for your ministry. Glad to listen to you for my apologetics knowledge. -Hanna
Great video as usual. This is truly one of my FAVORITE channels. But I came here to say that I love the shirt!
I do too!! 😂 Was thinking of making a 3d printed model of it!!
As somebody who comes from a STEM background and is still in a very technical role professionally, it always makes me laugh when casual atheists think they have some witty quip to shut down Christians. Literally all they prove is that they do not understand either subject very well and are only regurgitating what they have read or seen on social media. If anything they have to have much more faith in their basis for unbelief than we do in our belief in Christ, which is incredible and sad at the same time. Its like if somebody all your life told you not to go in the sun because its bad for you, and these people never really challenge that because of their preconceived notions and societal pressure. very sad
With a comment like that, I find it VERY hard to believe you come from a STEM background. It is actually christians who "regurgitate" what apologists have told them, with zero understanding or even the will to understand, anything at all about the most basic of the sciences. Anyone who says that unbelief requires faith is just stupid, and doesn't understand anything about the position of atheists which is, "I don't believe your claim".
It’s funny because it’s not a guarantee that the scientific theories would be re-established in the same form as there are in now. The problem of underdetermination of theory of data makes me think it’s entirely possible that an entirely different scientific paradigm could be established if our current one was erased.
It is tho, because good science is repeatable.
@@DM-dk7js look into “underdetermination of theory by data”. It basically boils down to the following: for any set of data there are potentially infinite explanations to explain it. Getting rid of all prior scientific understanding means there is a good chance the beginning assumptions and theories that post erasure scientists will develop are different from the ones that our current understanding derived from.
@@HauxYZ250but the result would be the same.
Gravity isn’t going to change. Pick something up and drop it, it’ll fall. That’ll never change. That’s the point. It’s about the result, not the beginning necessarily.
@@DM-dk7js yes, pick something up, drop it, and it will fall. That is the data. The problem comes in when we ask “what is the mechanism that explains the data?”. Gravity was not posited as a force that explains the movement of planets and what we experience when items fall to the earth until the 1600s. The theory of gravity as we know it is very complex. It also required lots of clever people to flesh it out. Given the same data it is possible that other very clever people develop a completely different explanation.
@@HauxYZ250but the result would be the same. Again.
Thank you Mike!!
Amen, beautifully and humbly said🙏🙏🙏
Your t shirt 😂
Another important thing here... The assumption that religious thought and scripture would not be the same, but scientific discovery would, is a very interesting but still fundamentally flawed question begging fallacy.
The position requires the assumption of atheism (because if God does exist He could reveal Himself and therefore scripture could be recreated the same) in order to state that scripture wouldn't be the same. It presumes the atheism that is required for its assertions to work.
Loved your Bilbo Baggins reference. 😃
Thanks Mike for the wisdom...we are always reminded the Bible will never go away as Jesus stated!
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24: 35, Mark 13: 31, Luke 21: 33).
Faith in Christ actually _began_ modern science as we know it. Because they _believed_ we could study the universe and it would make sense because it was made by a rational creator. Isaac Newton, Galileo, Boyle, Riemann, Faraday, Babbage, Gödel, etc. all followed Christ.
All the big universities were started by Christians too!
Even Einstein believed in _a_ God. So to call us irrational, illogical, and blindly faithful is quite ignorant indeed.
Isaac Newton was a Deist. The others were born into places where christianity was the dominant religion. Religion held science back for millennia. Science has nothing to thank religion for. Scientists never use any aspect of religion whatsoever to explain anything. Christians started universities solely for producing priests. Einstein did NOT believe in any gods.
Your comment shows you to be irrational, illogical and blindly faithful with no need for any other input.
Theism will always be with us because God made us in His image and gave us the capacity to know Him and He has written His thoughts in all of creation! We will always find God when we look around and look within!!!!
Except we don't. Show me one scientific paper which has ever concluded that "magic" or "goddidit" was the only explanation for some phenomenon. The fact is, we find out more and more ways every moment, in which existence is entirely natural, and god vanishes further and further into an ever-decreasing void.
Thank you Mike for being such a faithful and humble servant of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Love you brother.
Amen 🔥🙌 thank you Mike for being a authentic representative of true Christianity. I appreciate the work your doing on UA-cam in this time when even in the church you can't believe what you hear 🙏🔥
The atheist worldview already assumes that we did live in a world where there was no knowledge or belief in God, yet in that "vacuum," every single culture developed a god long before the developed science.
And they all came up with different gods and dogmas….they all disagree lol.
It’s not surprising critical thinking came after regular thinking lol
@@DM-dk7jsIf you were a critical thinker it would be obvious that God exists
I would love to see a Mike Winger/Ricky Gervais discussion. I believe that Mr. Gervais would come away with, at the very least, a little more respect for the Christian faith.
Agreed but I don't think he would listen. Doubt he actually wants answers or a discussion:(
Gervais is a silly person. Giggling and not serious. Waste of time. Do not cast pearls to swine.
Good point. However, Mike Winger comes across as so amiable and reasonable that if any person could manage it, it would be him. (Maybe Gavin Ortlund.) @@stephenthompson9722
Trying not to spill my drink from laughter. Um, no, sir.
Is that a jab at Mike Winger or Ricky Gervais or both? Just curious. @@LandonMetochoi
Thank you for your content and commentary!
Exactly if you took the scientific consensus from the last hundred years you'd find that black people like myself aren't actually fully human. It's just science get over it 😞
That may have been Charles Darwin's conclusion, but that has been debunked.
God uses the process of evolution to turn us into what He wants us to be, and no race is less evovled, but you could say they are evolving in a different direction
@@ayobithedark2772 I agree, I was being sarcastic, factitious etc
@@ayobithedark2772
Sorry, wrong, NO evolution, Gods word clearly states that each creature was created according to its kind. Adaptation of species…yes due the the amazing way DNA allows for variation. There are NO races! Except one race, mankind…we are all of the same kind with similar and very different variation. Mankind are merely different shades of brown, genetics, allows that through random selection of chromosomes. Hence you can get twins one dark skinned, one light skinned! Not that uncommon. If one understands genetic variation, which, incidentally Charles Darwin had absolutely no concept of, then variation is easily explained! Unlike evolution of one type of species into another! All Darwin’s data of finches showed variation. BUT…they were ALL still finches!
@@debbiewareing1178 of course there are different races.
Though we all share a common ancestor, there are considerable differences between races; traits which they have inherited from their ancestors and shaped by their environment.
This a glimpse of evolution.
And if you loosen your grip on *your* specific interpretation of Genesis, then you might one day understand the marvelous proceesses God has set in motion to create an ideal world
@@ayobithedark2772
Hmm…I’ve only just gripped genesis and it makes more sense. I am a biologist and totally understand the replication and recombination of DNA in the biological sense. I have also come to realise the amount of genetic variation that God’s created beings have in their DNA is phenomenal!
We are according to Gods word one race…mankind! You either believe the word of God or you don’t.
Let anyone that adds or takes away from the word of God suffer the curses outlined!
Let any man, angel or spirit come with another gospel be accursed!
You cannot pick and choose which bits you want to believe!
Answers in genesis gives an amazing answer to all scientific conclusions based on Gods word and NOT man’s! Time to decide where your loyalties lie. With man OR with God, even if you don’t understand it all, no one will until the Lord God reveals His amazing creation and we are born again and receive the blessed hope of a new body in Christ on the Lords day, whether dead and resurrected or still alive in the blinking of an eye.
God bless x
Gervais' point is that the speed of light does not change. Erase our understanding of it and we would eventually determine the speed again and it would be the same. Get rid of religion and something would replace it, not a Jesus, but something.
How many electron and protons in a hydrogen atom? Will that change? That is his point. Come on, you guys aren't this stupid.
You are ignoring the evidence. Clearly, they are that stupid.
@@kellystone7501 wrote ":You are ignoring the evidence. Clearly, they are that stupid."
LOL, got it now.
Did you do a response video to those Mormon critics who posted "Debunking Anti-Mormon Pastor Mike Winger!... and Calling Him to REPENT!" on youtube? If so, would you post the link, please.
Is Mike's christianity better than Mormon christianity then? All looks like fairytales to me.
Where do you get these awesome shirts man!!! XD
It's amazing how convincing these silly arguments seemed to me a few years back when I was an Atheist/Agnostic.
It took very little brain power to understand why they're incorrect. But I needed a huge amount of humility before being able to just consider the possibility of me being wrong.
What methodology did you use to determine that gods are more likely to exist than not exist?
@@CaptainFantastic222 I'm sorry, but I don't debate/exchange with New Atheists anymore, it's not worth the effort. Take care.
@@andres.e. That is silly. If you would show us your methodology, we might be able to employ it to discover our own gods. You're scared, aren't you.
It’s so sad! The Lord blessed Ricky with such an amazing sense of humor, but at this rate it doesn’t look like he’ll be in Heaven. Prayers for Ricky’s salvation. Only the Lord can open his eyes.👀 🛐
And Gervais is not going down far enough the road of truth to how matter energy time Space and entropy, got here when the Bible explains it in the first two chapters:
Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter!
The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin!
First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview EXPLAINS ENTROPY -The 2nd LAW AT ALL, let alone the first law of thermodynamics!
So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here; Right out the gate!
DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA genome, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“.
John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“!
God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there!
Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job!
3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing!
The Bible Predicted telecommunications
As long as Ricky still draws breath, never too late for him to become saved
@@bighand1530 Not entirely true.
2 Thessalonians 2: 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
@@jjphankPaul is specifically talking about unsaved hearts during the Tribulation there.
@@amyk87 Dude, nobody’s getting saved in The great tribulation, people are gnashing their teeth and angry at god but onesies here and there, That’s It! revelation seven is The Rapture, that’s not people who have been saved. I especially know because I’m an Evangelist and according to Philemon 6! There’s no Pre Tribulation rapture, the antichrist have to be recognized says second Thessalonians 2:1-3
If you haven’t noticed, that’s my favorite chapter
Psych
Great video... thanks, Mike!
Great video Mike I'm listen.
I think you're missing the point here Mike. The God of Christianity is supposed to be a deeply loving, personal God. If we eliminate the bible, wiped everyone's memories etc.. this "God" would cease to exist. The evidence can be found in the deeply troubling geographical correlation of religions and their believers. People in India do not have an innate, self-revealing sense that the God of the bible is true. It's only after hearing about Him, hearing testimonies, etc.. that he starts to seem plausible. If we eliminated all religion, religions would most certainly come back - but they wouldn't be the same because they're not "true" and "discoverable" like something like mathematics.
This presupposes that God doesn't actually exist. If He does exist, the stories might be different, but He would have revealed Himself to people nonetheless. The only way Gervais' gotcha works is if there is actually no God.
@@smokedbrisket3033 Why would we ever "presuppose" that God exists? Do we presuppose that other things exist? If I presuppose that unicorns exists, does that make them real? We should never, ever presuppose anything but instead let the evidence guide us. If you start from a position of presuppsoing nothing, you will find evidence for a great deal many things - the Christian God is not among them. I say this as someone who believed for two and a half decades and finally had that realization when I stopped presupposing he did, and instead let the evidence guide me.
Why doesn't God reveal himself the same way to all peoples around the world? It's almost as if he either wants the confusion and tribalism; or that he was created by the different tribes themselves?@@smokedbrisket3033
You are forgetting the work of the Holy Spirit. There are ppl that have never had their eyes on the Bible nor heard it from anyone - yet knows..
Hoe did Paul meet Jesus?
@@annie-v_z- I'm not forgetting the "work" of the Holy Spirit. I was a Christian nearly two and a half decades. As a Christian I always struggled to understand what the Holy Spirit was telling me. Now as an agnostic I can see plain as day that I was having so much trouble because I was looking for something beyond my inner voice that wasn't there. As for people knowing the Bible who had never heard of it from anyone or seeing it anywhere before - I just straight up don't believe you. This is something already converted Christians will claim is true with suspect motives and no evidence. In fact, Christians lie all the time about events in not only other people's lives, but their own. Lying to yourself is required to be a Christian. Lying to others is a by-product of that.
His argument assumes that there is no God that could reveal Himself to his people again. If He exists...then He has that ability...and the entire point is moot.
No, if he exists he may not necessarily have that ability. You are defining god into existence.
@lil-al I'm not defining Him...the Bible does...and according to its definition He most certainly would. The question is about the God of the Bible...therefore you must use its definition in order to answer the question.
@@bjjohns4408 The bible is people defining him into existence. Also, half of the attributes christians give him today don't even come from the bible (for instance, triune, personal, etc. not biblical but who even cares??)
@lil-al there's nothing I'm going to say that's going to change your mind...and it isn't my place to. I would encourage you to read the 66 books penned over a couple of thousand years by more than 40 different authors....in particular psalm 22 and then any one of the gospels. I believed He didn't exist for many years....did horrible things...lived a terrible life...a life anyone would define as terrible. I made every argument I could against His word. Thought it was all fairy tales that had been concocted by man to control and manipulate people to their own ends...and unfortunately it was used precisely that way by countless people and governments and still is until this day....doesn't make it any less true. I'll be praying for you.
Thanks for posting
Yeah, this is the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect on Mike's end.
As he admits his limitations. Not characteristic of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ricky is in total rebellion. He doesn't bring up how flat earthers are completely wrong. He needs to repeatedly make statements against God because he's looking around for others to agree with him.
Flat earthers don’t try to legislate there flat earth beliefs onto others
Well flat earthers aren’t taking away rights from people and waging theistic fascism at us so….
@@DM-dk7jsWell who should be in charge of making the rules then? Are you going to go by majority rules, because we already know how terribly that ends.
@@GTRKT-qr5sf So you ARE saying that the krisjuns should be making the rules?? Holy hell what a nightmare that would be.
@@lil-al Well at the end of the day. Whatever country you are in would be making the rules regardless, but I would say that if we followed God for morality you would end up with the best (or rather only) possible guide for infallable wrong and right.
Your shirt is awesome!!
🐈⬛ 😂
Science proves many uncertainties in itself.. Yet humble enough to adjust with fact based evidence.. 💯
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve" - Bilbo Baggins
I love the shirt!
This was excellent! What was the book that talked about this philosophy and science due to Christianity?
Whatever book it was, it was lying. Christianity held back science for 1500 years. We would have cured cancer now if it wasn't for the stranglehold that the church had on education for so long. Read Richard Carrier's "the scientist in the early Roman empire" if you want to know where science originates.
Amen brother Mike.
It begs the question
Well said Mike, thanks.
Amen Mike!
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." -Bilbo Baggins
I LOVE that you pronounce his name Ricky GERVeys
Yes he has to mock the name to poion the well. Shows the standards of Pasta Mike's arguments, doesn't it. And yes, I am mocking Pasta Mike.
Love the reference to Tom Holland, he's a good resource
C'mon Mike! Do a video where you walk us through your closet. These shirts are priceless!
Mike, can you add audio AI translation on your videos? Its a new feature on youtube that works really well. That would be very useful. I have many friends who doesnt understand English.
Leave them be, they don't need to be assaulted with Pasta Mike's balderdash.
So many comedians do this. They say something that in passing sounds so clever and the audience claps like seals but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or mean anything at all. George Carlin did a lot of this.
Bilbo Baggins, "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". 😂
Thanks for all you do Mike, your videos have been a real blessing for me, and I am so much more equipped to think biblically than I was before I started watching your channel.
historical events are not the same as repeatable experimental science. Well done Ricky. The scientific disciplines are the only arbiter of truth, now scientifically prove that sentence as true.
I’ve been following your channel for many years Mike. The thing about Ricky and all smart people is this, they cannot accept that there are things beyond their capacity to understand, package and explain. For a Christian it’s easy to understand that we have a partial understanding of God because God is partially revealed and what is revealed is enough evidence of God. Hopefully he will catch up with himself as he chases his tail.
"they cannot accept that there are things beyond their capacity to understand" What utter utter garbage. "Smart people" are WELL aware of the limitations of their smartness, and that there are an infinite number of things which may well remain permanently beyond their capacity to understand. It is the arrogant faithful who think they know it all whilst ignoring the best methodology we have invented to actually discover things (the scientific method).
Amen
Philosophy is the father of science; "logic" and "reason" are at the center of every hypothesis or study of data. It is actually only through logic and reasoning that one can reasonably conclude the existence of God! Praise God!!
Is it opposite day?? You can "reason" and "logic" anything, but objective evidence of your particular deity? There is none.
5:21 Christians do definitely say that a lot and also yes we do have words people can't say it's called speaking or praying in tongues.
When I was a kid there were nine planets. Now there are only eight. Saying goodbye 😢 to Pluto.
Exactly. I believe the Bible would come back as soon as you studied history.
How would that work?
You know what they say, if you get your philosophy from a comedian, don't be surprised that it's a joke.
People are just too stupid in this day and age to know the problems with what he says... he relies on that.
His reasoning is diabolical, he doesn't understand science or religion.
Reckon God would be the FIRST thing people would start discovering even without any miraculous intervention based on the order they'd witness. If all Ricky's memories were wiped, would he rediscover everything exactly as he has in his mind now? Likely not but he'd still be Ricky, just as God is still God.
Nonsense. They would just (re)discover the laws of physics, no gods needed. Scientists NEVER use any part of god/religion to explain ANYTHING EVER. God has evolved over the millennia. The ancient Canaanites would not recognise their little tribal god in your infinite jahweh.
Just because you destroy a book does not mean you have destroyed the message. The whole premise of the New Testament is that multiple accounts of different people from different backgrounds witnessed Jesus and his glory. The old testament spans over the course of several hundreds of years of different people recounting their relationship with God.
What rubbish. There is no account in the NT or anywhere else of anyone witnessing Jesus. Have you even read it??
For anyone who is curious, I would recommend looking into studies that have been funded with self-interest of companies and organizations in mind
Science changes every week
Right. At this point science can't even tell you clearly what a woman is.... crazy.
Science has definitely changed over the past 1000 years. Just did a class on astronomy and our ideas of the world and space has definitely changed. And I imagine the same will be said 1000 years from now. Science is always expanding
Whereas the evidence for gods is still at zero, and it;s been a lot longer than 1000 years.
On then on the other hand, the Bible has been consistent over thousands of years, but science has changed drastically (thankfully) even in the last one hundred years.
What are you on about? There are endless books showing how the bible (OT and NT) have changed over time. Go read some. The scientific method itself does not change, but as we discover more evidence, hypotheses need to be altered to accommodate it. Still no evidence for your imaginary friend though. That hasn't changed.
I liked this video for the apologetic reasoning..... and Lord of the Rings reference.
"Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave." G.K. Chesterton
I see that globe earth behind you, and I already know you don't follow the Bible. OK, just kidding. :) I love your videos, Mike. I first found you in your analysis of Bill Johnson and his theology and was greatly impressed by your kind, gracious, fair-handed approach (and also saw you rightly go more medieval on their views in your Physics of Heaven analysis). Stay humble and keep on truckin' for the Lord. Godspeed.
🔥 🙌
I like how he said that science proves itself, and also claimed something true he could not prove just because that would confirm his own beliefs.
The question is which god would be re-discovered? There are 2700 relatively well known gods now - or it will be another, freshly discovered one?
I would like to spend an afternoon in heaven laughing with Ricky. I hope Ricky 'discovers' Christ before it's to late.
Ricky has spent much of his life mocking God and leading others to do the same. If he gets to heaven, I am not sure what he will be thinking.
You are assuming that YOU will be there. I imagine god would vastly prefer the company of a legend like Ricky, to a servile snivelling sheep who is unable to use the brain god gave him.
"“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”" bilbo baggins
The saving power transforms and reproved us when our actions and thought life are in opposition to God's. There is peace in our trials and physical challenges. He walks beside us. We are never alone even when we can't feel Him. I know He is real. He deserves our best.
How come christians are no different to anyone else then? Why do you need to pretend you are transformed? WHy is your god not evident in anything you say or do?
Nice response