"The fool tells himself there is no God." The fact that God used many the world would marginalize and shun is further evidence of His vast superiority to the ways of man. Man's best is but filthy rags to Him. His mercy and grace are abundant in the fact that He even allows us to continue existing. Mankind is reverting back to the dark days of Noah right before our eyes.
@@heavnxbound "His mercy and grace are abundant in the fact that He even allows us to continue existing" Lord have mercy! 💯💯💯🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾 people better wake up ASAP
@Mark says: *Can you demonstrate this to be true?* You demonstrate it to be true by believing (trusting) the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) because when you do such a thing you get verification from God himself through being born again and receiving God's Holy Spirit. If such a thing isn't demonstrating when you do such a thing then what would you call it?
@Mark says: *Accepting a claim based on faith, I'd call that delusional....not a demonstration.* The demonstration is what God does by giving you his Holy Spirit after you believe (trust) the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If you refuse to do your part of the demonstration by believing (trusting) the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) then how can anything even be demonstrated to you? *It's like you've never done this before.* I've done this plenty of times. *Are you familiar with the thought experiment called the Outsider's trust of faith? Do,you care whether or not your beliefs are true?* There is NOT a single doubt in my mind that my beliefs are true because they have been confirmed by God himself. When something is confirmed by God one has no doubts.
@Mark says: *Call the show a little early so they can properly screen the call and get you on air. I mean, if you're willing to call. The hosts will treat you properly if you extend the same curtesy.* I won't be making the call because I don't make long distance calls and for me the call is long distance.
wonderful script..... i have but one point, see in this argument i do and i don't however, perhaps logic is cemented in something greater that human conception but then one could argue a technicality that disrupts that point by saying that reasoning leaves room to conceptualise and if logic and reasoning tend to go hand in hand you'd forfeit your idea of greater conception right? seeing as how we all have reasons for the things we do, we all have justifications and explanations that make our behaviour seem reasonable and logical like why we say things and maybe we do it simply because we can and because we want to but is that not still a reason in itself? so then to my point you must at least concede that individual logic is conceptual
I love the way you handle this particular question. I also love the “Frank”-ness of the way you respond😜😄 We really appreciate who you are & what you do!
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
@@neoneherefrom5836 Anselm's argument is one to make you scream, I am a theist, but sometimes when I think about that argument it just seems a little off, like the idea of God is already in a person's mind, I am not so sure if that is true.
I have used this kind of argument before but never in this way. The way I used it was I tried to use something that even if you were color blind, or some other mental impairment, you would eventually have no choice but to accept it is true like the sun exists or the sun is yellow. They try to get around the point of it but eventually they ditch the argument because it is an objective truth they can't get around. But the way he does it is more interesting because it better thrusts them into a corner that they can't get out of.
The sun is actually white, not yellow. In space, the sun is white. When you look at the sun through the earth's atmosphere, it looks yellow or orange. But, your point about objective truth is still a good point.
"Blind" arguments from believers typically feel like the person making the argument has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. (Because it's very easy to give a blind person conclusive evidence proving sight exists; there are tons of experiments we can run to prove that to them.) Meanwhile we have no actual evidence of any gods, and even with basic things like truth (the set of facts about reality), (A) nothing inherently indicates a being is required for truth to exist only that _a reality_ exists and (B) that's why Turek in this video just says for no reason "there's gotta be a mind somewhere", with no real evidence or argument why that would be true. That's why he immediately derails his own answer immediately after "there's gotta be a mind". Worse, his derailment is really illogical because _logic is defined as an abstract concept._ An idea. So we don't say it exists. If Turek is only saying god is an idea in minds and doesn't actually exist (you know, exactly like the laws of logic) then I'd 100% agree with him. The problem is I suspect Turek believes a god actually exists -- that a god actually shares reality with us.
@@GTRKT-qr5sf "Did you even watch the video? " Yes, I also stated in another post: Very specious arguments. - "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality. - 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the implicit definition of 4. The mind behind maths is the human mind... it's a symbolic representation of reality. - The laws of logic are statements that describe reality and the behaviour of reality. - The laws of logic are spaceless, timeless and immaterial because they are descriptions of physical entities. Just like "red". They don't exist independently. - Before there were any human beings on Earth, there could not have been the statement "there are no human beings on the Earth" as there was no one to make that statement. - "Laws are grounded in a mind" is false... again, they are statements that _describe_ physical behaviour. - Truths can't exist without a mind because, as I stated _" "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality."_
what made you become a deist? Ive been trying to find a good book on the subject but its hard to find. Also is there such a view as personal deism? I like the idea of deism but I have a hard time wrapping my head around a creator who made everything and doesn't interact with their creation at least on some level, of course maybe theism is already the personal form of deism
@@robertwilson7259 I was a Muslim before but then decided Islam isn't true. I don't believe any current religion is true, but I do believe there is a higher being. I think this being may communicate with us one day, maybe never. I agree that it doesn't make sense that they would just create the universe and leave us to be, but I think the explanation that there is no higher being makes less sense
What I've always said is this - we understand things now that were incomprehensible to humans 50 years ago. Just because we understand certain things through scientific discovery, doesn't mean the concept of something incomprehensible such as God may exist. Something such as a God, creator of the universe (and possibly infinite universe's), would be almost impossible for us to truly understand. The majority of us don't even understand the science behind the matter that makes up the screen you are looking at now.
Very specious arguments. - "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality. - 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the implicit definition of 4. The mind behind maths is the human mind... it's a symbolic representation of reality. - The laws of logic are statements that describe reality and the behaviour of reality. - The laws of logic are spaceless, timeless and immaterial because they are descriptions of physical entities. Just like "red". They don't exist independently. - Before there were any human beings on Earth, there could not have been the statement "there are no human beings on the Earth" as there was no one to make that statement. - "Laws are grounded in a mind" is false... again, they are statements that _describe_ physical behaviour. - Truths can't exist without a mind because, as I stated _" "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality."_
You are presupposing everything is physical when you don’t have any evidence of that claim. You can’t point to logic as something physical. If you are a product of physical processes than you have no free will or accountability, you are just atoms in motion. All civilization is based entirely on ideas and language of free will and accountability so your philosophy is an end to civilization and common language and return to mindless animal tribal savagery without understanding. You don’t accept evidence for philosophy about a mind creating reality, therefore your philosophy is mindless. You can’t accept things of the mind and improving yourself toward a more divine and intelligent standard so you accuse others and adopt behavior that destroys yourself.
Stick man Sam - When Frank talks about laws being grounded in a "mind beyond human minds," he his simply stating his beliefs. This "mind" is merely a personification of our ability to hold abstract thought. It's not _actual_ evidence for anything.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
Words! We couldn’t talk to our very selves without the use of words. The use of words and our ability to read and communicate through their usage is the very image of God in us. John 1:1
In John chapter 1 verse 1 where it says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God! The "Word" translates from the Greek to the English as Logos which means logic! In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God, and the logic was God! Logic existed before man did was the basis of Franks argument!
@Mark of Excellence Are you sure about that? That's your definition of Logic. Your _Logic exists within our minds_ therefore logic doesn't exist in Nature. I'm not saying God _only_ exists within our minds but separating God and Logic unnecessarily adds baggage. It's like you're saying Truth must be illogical therefore our Minds are only logical.
Yes laws of the human minds are grounded in human minds. Without human minds no one can answer what would be. That doesn't mean you get to say therefore God and more specifically your god
God Himself is the ultimate, absolute and objective truth but when it comes to human implication he will always depends on objective truth as God is, which helps us decide to a greater good and greater truth.
@@duran5706 He gave His son Jesus Christ for the sake of the world. We should’ve all burned, but He gave us a chance to be saved. If God wanted to, He could’ve let us all die to our sins, but instead He gave His son for us. I dunno about you, but this is love.
@@duran5706 Oh, I’m sorry. It looks like I’ve made you misunderstand. That’s just one of the things He did for us. Well, moving on ~~ I know that God is good because well, He’s God. God is the greatest conceivable being. If God is the greatest conceivable being, then He must be omnibenevolent. Now why is that? Our moral intuitions point to us that good is greater than evil. If good is greater than evil, and God is the greatest, then He must be good. He must be all-good because it is simply greater to be all-good than to be partially good. Now, if someone was “more good” than Him, then this someone would be greater than Him, no? But how can there be someone greater than the greatest?
nickj14711 you can't even argument with me if you don't believe in God. Just think about it. Your world view does not allow you to say, or even care about it, whether I am right or wrong. Why do you care? Now regarding 'evidence', can you put an immaterial God inside your materialistic world view? If you see a paint you assume there is a painter. If you see a building, you assume there is a builders. It's important you don't deny your concious because you already know there is a God.
nickj14711 Still lurking in Frank Turek video comments I see I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish. Obviously, you’re not trying to understand a different perspective, and obviously arguing on the internet isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. So what are you doing? I’ve seen you talk down to Christians in the comments for months on end. How can someone be so passionate about God NOT existing?
nickj14711 - If you became blind you wouldn't be thinking these things. There's the answer to your question of How could a being be immaterial? That is if you're able to think outside your box.
nickj14711 lol because natural force can’t create the big bang if the big bang supposedly created natural force. The cause can’t come after the effect. The only logical option is a supernatural force which is infinite and not limited by time, space or matter. God.
nickj14711 sorry, I didn't ask for your opinion. If you are so sure he's wrong, attend one of his sessions personally and debate him. Everyone can Be a keyboard warrior. Doesn't mean you know much or you're right. Good day
nickj14711 it's obvious you're nothing more than a keyboard warrior. The blessing of your input? Which part of your input was a blessing? Calling someone's submission crap? To me it speaks volumes of your content than his and for that I don't waste my time debating the likes of you. And I know Frank won't either, especially not through the internet. That's what immature teens do. If you want a civil discussion, go see him personally and request an audience. Something I doubt you've done or will ever do because you really won't be ready to face a learned man like him. You want the easy way, making all the noise while away in person and simply changing the topic whenever you find yourself losing(like you just did with daring me to provide evidence of God) so that you feel good inside for walking away victorious without achieving anything lool. I already read the other comments down there and I immediately identified your type. No, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't ever be ashamed of standing for truth simply because parts of it sound bitter to someone. We will never dilute the message of God and Jesus because 'you feel offended'. I WILL NOT cast my pearls before swine. You can bother disturbing another target, cos just as your mind is closed towards this message so is my mind closed towards whatever lies you have in store for me. Ciao! Stay safe. Happy trolling!
nickj14711 sure, suit yourself. Do you feel good yet? Or you want to rant some more? Go ahead. Pour out all the bitterness. Loool. I truly wish I cared. Lemme know when you are done😂😂😂😂
nickj14711 pursue a career as a keyboard warrior. Suits you perfectly. I can bet you 100% you have nothing more to offer other than rants on socia media. I've met atheists with actually a friendly and open-minded persona and we engaged in civil debates. No rantings, just civil discussions. Those are the respectable ones, not you. You're just trying too hard for attention. I'm only entertaining you because I wanted some comedy to begin my day and I must say you've dished it out perfectly.😂😂😂😂 Looking forward to your LIVE, IN-PERSON, non-social media debate with Dr. Frank. Then just maybe I'll begin to take your kind of atheism seriously. Until then, Have a nice day again😂😂😂😂
nickj14711 first of all you're a huge liar and I'm glad other readers will come witness this. You're a liar when you say you mirror the tone of the person you're speaking to. Before commenting, I read your replies on other's comments. Their friendly comments were met with unwholesome harsh language from you 99% of the time. When I did comment, I gave Frank an appreciative remark in a harmless tone and guess who came using a foul language the very first time? No need to answer that, right? Even when I replied it was still harmless. Simply telling you that I did not ask for your opinion was not an insult or harsh in any manner. If indeed you mirror the tone of your opponent, you would have replied my comment in a gentle non-harsh manner, but in every one of your comments you have filled with not less than 5 cuss words. So guess who's rude, arrogant and cowardly. So yeah, you're a big liar! I know youre type. You resort to insults whenever you are not making sense and want to divert attention. And if you don't delete your comments, even your fellow atheists will be ashamed at the cheap tactics you're using. You're lying when you say many Christians you speak to are decent and civil. If the comments below are anything to go by, even a goat will see that you're anything but decent and civil. And I certainly won't answer your questions! Not because I can't, but because of who you have displayed yourself to be. I would gladly do so with someone else who shows he is decent and civil cos I do it all the time . At least with that, we will make headway whiles respect each other's views. So Mr. Keyboard warrior with nothing better to do with his time, I know your ego has been bruised but you won't show it. You were not expecting someone like me because the ones you're used to only keep quiet to watch you talk nonsense and deliver nothing. The only way you will save your face is to keep spewing cuss words to protect your hyperinflated ego. You're like dark clouds with no rain. Loud but zero content. Defending the indefensible and only cussing to attempt to save face. Pathetic approach and I advise you learn from a more mature sensible atheist and use the right approach. You have absolutely no interest in what is true either, but lemme point out one TRUE FACT. You sir, are a keyboard warrior with no valuable input whatsoever to make on this platform and are simply hungry for baseless debates on social media. You sir, ARE A TROLL. And you disgust me simply for that reason. When you're ready to have an open-mind, and will restrain yourself from cuss words, I'll be willing to engage. If not, find another.
Is objective truth the exact opposite of subjective truth? I think what the christian argument is getting at is not an objective truth which can still be relative to point of view but the Absolute truth which is neither subjective nor relative. Atheist would then say that the Absolute can not be ascertained where the believer would say "not ascertained but it can be approached". God is that Absolute. All words that can be said to be "absolutes" like Truth, Justice, Beauty, Love can only be describing one thing because there can be only one Absolute and that is God. Our relative instruments cannot detect it but can follow its trajectory.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
@nickj14711 he did. Itatheist are so funny. They get evidence and create any excuse to cut it off. If God were to appear in front of them they would still doubt. Lol atheist deep down know God exists, they just dont want the Christian God to exist because of the moral accountability. And bible says, without faith, it's impossible to please God.
@@ferny9179 Utter rubbish. There's no evidence for the existence of some god and all of the arguments I've heard for it, including the one in this video, are specious. "atheist deep down know God exists" - That's an oxymoron. "they just dont want the Christian God to exist because of the moral accountability" - How does that work then ? If I pretend that gravity doesn't exist, can I jump out of a window and survive ?
The laws of logic are just descriptions of reality. I would say for anything that exists, it must be itself, not not itself and can’t be itself and not itself at the same time. Requires no mind behind it, just reality.
The Universe has a system of laws governing them even without prior humans existence to make sense of them. Abstract didn't came from nothing, it needs a source if you follow logic, if abstract things are eternal hence an eternal mind is its source.
@@Kaho "The Universe has a system of laws governing them even without prior humans existence to make sense of them. " - These laws are _descriptive_ not _prescriptive_ .
Objective truth…sure. That doesn’t mean God exists. He’s making a leap we can’t make. Religionists will make it. Because A exists doesn’t mean B exists.
So it is also a assertion that god doesn’t exist. :) Atheism is a belief, a lack of belief in god is still a belief in things you can never know for certain.
@@Dobermann89-dr2rc No. To "say" that God doesn't exist, or anything else for that matter, is only an assertion when you provide no evidence, demonstration, production or reproduction, or prediction. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no such thing as god or gods, and nothing more.
Human opinion is subjective truth, but because its subjective truth, it is subject to error. The Word of God is objective truth. Human opinion is subjective truth, but because its subjective truth, it is subject to error. Objective truth, on the other hand, is always true and cannot be changed.Proverbs 18:2 ESV / 147 helpful votes HelpfulNot Helpful A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
We communicate with each other based on language; language itself shaped what this guy calls “laws of logic”. Language is one of the most powerful technologies humans ever invented as it is a tool for both thinking and communicating. So yes, we did invent these “laws of logic” he is referring to. Truthful statements do not, in any way, shape or form, imply the existence of a governing mind.
my fight isn't in the flesh but in principalities. lord of evil and Lord of good, who do you serve? lord of evil: lies, addiction, violence, porn, depression, sex confusion, deceiver, profanity, hatred, poorness, pride, lust, gluttony etc Lord of good: absence of all evil.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:11
So Jesus spoke again: ‘In very truth I tell you, I am the door of the sheepfold.’ I am the door; anyone who comes into the fold through me will be safe. ... John 10:7, 9 REB
Circular presupposinalist reasoning at it's finest: 1 if objective truth exists, then god exists 2 objective truth exists, because god exists 3 therefore god exists
@@albertdupreez9462 that's an unsubstantiated claim. Can you provide a priori knowledge confirming that objectivity only exists within a reality created by a god?
@@He.knows.nothing Through the basic definition of the word. If you want absolute objectivity among billions of humans over thousands of years, humans can have no say in it. This is because anything that a human, or any other being, says from themselves is subjective, and always will be. We as Christians follow the subjectivity of God as the objective standard of living, because as the Creator He knows how we were created and how we are intended to live in order to thrive and not just survive. His laws and the laws of logic is His thought patterns engrained in every one of us, for we are all made in His image.
@@He.knows.nothing So therefore in order to create a set of objective laws in a society is absolutely impossible. If individual humans decide, it is their own subjectivity that are inscribed in law (like chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin). If the majority of people in a society decide, it is the subjectivity shared by the majority that is inscribed (like Nazi Germany on the genocide of Jews, Americans on slavery, South Africans on apartheid). None of the above two sets of principles delivers anything close to objectivity or something close to morality (as the above mentioned historic occurrences are described (subjectively again of course) immoral today). So the only way to establish objectivity once and for all is to have a Being who is never changing and is the supreme Ruler and dominant King. A Creator, who knows His creation and knows what every law and the breaking of every law would cause and what the best would be. And I am here to tell you that He exist. Just like you and no one else can explain where matter and laws of nature comes from, I can’t explain where He comes from. But just by studying medicine I know that a human body is not the result of a random and unguided process.
@@albertdupreez9462 you're talking specifically about moral objectivity, of which you can't even demonstrate to exist because to do implies demonstrating that your specific objective source also exists, which according to your religious claims just so happens to be outside of the spacetime continuum. There is no evidence to falsify your claims, but there is also no evidence to falsify an atheist claim that your dogma, like every other dogma, is not simply an accumulation of subjectively inspired texts designed to construct a religious worldview that explains reality and human values through an objective standard. Unless you can prove that your bible is divine dictation, then it's no different then any other source of objective value. I'm a moral naturalist myself. It's the idea that moral behaviors are the result of psychological evolution and are subjective to the individual's experience of morality within their own psyche. I do believe, however, that morality can be explained objectively through constructing true or false statements in accordance with any specific definition of morality (for example: "the involuntary imposition of will" as posited by tjump on his youtube). What you define/experience morality to be is subjective, but that doesn't prevent you from constructing that experience into an objective system that filters the subjectivity. Societies use this to codify morality through law and religion and have done so for as long as we can tell. There is no evidence of a society uncovering the undiscovered objective moral truths underlying our reality. We have nothing but religious/philosophical claims in that regard that can't substantiate themselves apriori/aposteriori. Even if you were to substantiate objective morality, you would also have to make the connection from there to your god which is problematic in of itself as there are quite the stockpiles of evidence establishing biblical morality as moral relativism (Discrepancies between covenants. Do into others as you'd have done unto you/owning beating slaves, turn the other cheek/taking virgins as spoils of genocide, I'm sure you've heard the common atheist rebuttals).
The point is there will still be laws and concepts governing the universe even if humans don't exists to make sense of them. It means an intelligent mind created these concepts outside of human intelligence, and that intelligent mind is what we call God. This is so Simple to understand.
@Andrew K the statement was, is and will be eternally true. The statement is declared by beings characterised by logic, beings who produce thought. Quite simply, it seems that the water, the plants and the stones (for example) do not think, as we define logic and thought. So, it is not needed the pre-existence of the statement. It is needed the existence of logic. Christianity accepts that God is an eternal being, is the absolute mind and according to His mind everything else exists and because He wanted to create them.
It is unfortunate unbelievers will say no law giver required for a law to exist. Yet here we are with laws. My response to the atheist not liking what Frank said about no humans existing before there were humans being absolutely logically true. Truth sounds like hate, to those who hate the truth.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
He failed to use sound logic when he spoke of how it was true at one point that humans didn't exist, because he jumped straight to the conclusion that truth requires a mind to exist. The only thing that happens to truth when there are no people is that there are no minds to know what the truth is. Truth is truth with or without a mind to know it.
@@doctorwebman If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound? No, because the very concept of sound necessitates an ear. 😂😂Idk what I'm proving here.
@@jaciemokidm609 "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?": Yes, it makes a sound, but nobody can hear that sound. Sound is vibrations in matter, and that still happens even if nobody is around to hear it.
@: "But how do you know it does make a sound" Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must be dissipated when the tree falls, and the laws of physics require that sound occurs when a tree falls over in the forest. No faith needed, as there is mountains of evidence that falling trees make sounds.
I can accept that stuff like rape, stealing, lying and murder is objectively wrong, but my question is where did morality come from? Did humans study it and base the objective morality off the proof that stuff like rape, murder, lying and stealing was objectively wrong or did God do it? I really need an answer, I need concrete proof that objective morality originated from God. PS - I believe that there was a creator for our bodies.
Objective morality had to come from God in order to objective (objective means fact or observable, certain) because if it came from humans, why would they do that in the first place, it would also mean that their "objective truth" is actually subjective because take the constitution it is based of the old testament laws, truth had to have come from the main root of all things and that is God, when Jesus said Lust is also adultery, we now know we all commited adultery because God Himself said so, if it was a random human, that person would face people saying "that's your opinion!" but they can't say that to the creator of the universe. Hope that helped
Thanks. I’ve been worried lately because I used to be very convinced by Christian videos, especially Frank’s but now I’m constantly thinking what if they’re missing things proving that they’re wrong and I see atheists “debunking” him. Can you pray for me to overcome this and become born-again? Please.
@@Nameless-pt6oj Sure Lord God, Please strengthen JC's heart, to hate to be lukewarm, to accept your grace lord, please guide him/her to understand you and to read your word, Lord guide JC to repent and trust in your Son Jesus to fear you lord, but to not fear the devil, free him/her from the temptations Lord but if the only way for JC to have faith is through temptation, may you guide him/her to resist the devil and flee to you, guide JC to stop doubting and to Grow in faith lord all these I ask in Jesus name. Amen.
Morality evolved as a social phenomena among our specie with the goal of increasing our chances of survival. As we understood better and better the world and our nature we realised that there are specific rules and principles the objectively make living together possible and increases out chances of survival. The the result of the historical evolution of those rules and principles is what we call morality.
@@marco_mate5181 Ok so you define morality as what is great for our evolution? Mkay im skeptical about that because why is rape bad? i mean it causes the increase of human population and maybe even speciation so why is it wrong? Its because it invades privacy right? I agree, no one wants to be raped, but that's what science can't explain, why is rape wrong by answering it through science?
I agree with his statements about logic & it being of universal mind . The only problem is referring that power to a God or deity .especially the god of the Bible . U can accept the truth of universal mind without accepting a deity , especially Christian. Remember that people
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind. Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind. Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence. The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world. To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind: P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances. P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances. P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances. Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions. Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic: P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language. P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication. P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes. P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language. P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality. P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
@@seanhammer6296 That God isn't just a "concept" but an actual being. Try to keep up. A "concept" can't create a real, concrete universe. The only one smoking pot here is you, numbnuts.
To be an atheist is to believe in the absurd. That everything just pop out of nothing and that everything is random. Both contradict the laws of the universe.
What's absurd is that theists think that's what atheists must think, but they don't. I don't think the universe popped out of nothing, and it certainly isn't random.
@Whatsisface 4 interesting, so you don’t agree with what other atheists have been saying. Okay, here’s a question for you then: where did everything come from? Coz what Science says that before the big bang there is only the singularity (where space and time didn’t even exist.) And where did these universal laws come from and why does the universe obey them?
@@theobserver3753 I have not seen other atheists say that the universe popped out of nothing and is random. To answer your question, I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, I don't know that the universe "came from". I don't know where the universal laws came from, if they came from anything, maybe the universe is the only way things can be. But in the end, I will follow where the evidence leads.
@@albertdupreez9462 math, science, and, logic are refined process that we use to find the truth. They are based off human experience. (Simplified example) if humans learn that if we have one rock and then we get another rock then we have 2 rocks so based on that we know that 1 + 1 = 2 and as we experience more things we can create more complex processes to learn information and experience things and if rules are created that don’t result in a truth or don’t line up with reality then they are changed so they do. Math, science, and logic are based off collective experience and complex exploration of experiences.
@@MichealQuinm I agree with you. Science and math is a collective “experience” of humans living on this earth. But you said “if rules are created that don’t result in a truth or don’t line up with reality then they are changed so they do”. So if I understand you correctly, humans “experience” the “reality” in the world, which means that there is a reality that humans are studying. That means there is a reality that exists beyond the mind of the human. That means even without humans that “reality” will still be true. Gravity, Newton’s laws and all those extremely logic and vastly complex “realities” will remain true even if there is no humans to study it. Where does this amazingly intelligent reality come from which managed to create beings that now, in a very complex way, is trying to analyse itself?
@@albertdupreez9462 first of all the human mind exists within reality. complex beings came upon through evolution. and we are trying to analyze reality in a complex way because humans have developed a complex way to understand stuff and have benefitted from doing so? also stop putting stuff in quotation marks, its dumb like are you really questioning whether or not we "experience" "reality".
@@MichealQuinm Not at all, I am quoting you to try and show you the flaws in your own reasoning. So reality is a result of non-reality. You are saying that nothing formed matter (going against reality according to the laws of thermodynamics) and then it exploded and formed progressing forms of advancing life (even though the second law of thermodynamics states that with time everything tend towards disorder which is the opposite to creating complex life forms). It is impossible to derive such complexities from an illogically, unguided and random set of events. Beside the physics, where does morality come in, in your illogical, unguided and random based world view?
Can I ask why I should care about god if it exists if it can't scare me into worship and I have a personal reason to hold the belief if it does exist it isn't worth my worship?
@@Nameless-pt6oj no, no he isn't, at least not to someone he abandoned if he exists. He's not love to a kid he left to be abused by ignoring prayers, sorry. If god is love there isn't any towards me.
God does love you, don’t forget that He is omniscient, He knows everything and perhaps He allowed those things to happen so that you would grow or help others in some way
Why does there need to be a good to say that 2+2 equals 4? We all have the ability to observe our surrounding. For instance if one has two apples and adds an other two apples one can see that there are four apples. So why the hell should we need a god for that?
This is sort of the old question of “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” The problem there is that sound, by definition requires a source, medium, and receiver. Yet, sound waves travel whether or not there is something or someone to receive them. Just as sound requires a source, logic requires a consciousness, which did not exist until humans came about on earth. In that sense, there really was no logic before humans. If any given thing is immaterial, then by definition, it doesn’t exist. By describing god as immaterial, he’s effectively saying that god does not exist. I’m hard pressed to argue otherwise.
Sound is vibration of the air (medium). Tree (source) will create sound. No receiver. Point is that in atheistic world view every answer draw the another question and you go to infinite regress, ending up with paradox or that you are in Matrix. But nobody live like that nor make their existential decisions. Christian worldview have infinite being which terminate that regress i.e. God. Atheists choose themselves end of regressions i.e. make themselves the gods. Same do the many other religions, cults, sects. Just take any sin, they are contradictory to themselves. For example selfishness. If you need to be loved to satisfy your selfishness you need to sacrifice that same selfishness to somebody love you. Or else nobody would like to be around you and you will be miserable person. That is why there is so many broken hearts, marriages, families. You simply cannot trade love, it has to be gift. Most of atheists hide behind logic and reasoning, but they are mad at God which does not exists, furious if someone call them sinners even if they does not believe in hell etc. Best example is Niche, which started hating and disproving God because women rejected his proposal. And was bitter and angry man whole life. Even if God does not exists it is only logical way out.
I'm not sure how it's possible to be angry at something you don't completely believe exists. No rational person gets furious at someone calling them a sinner since there's really no such thing as sin, just good and bad. Relationships don't necessarily go bad because of a discord between who is loved more or less or why. Most times it's just a matter of a mismatch between personality types. You don't need religion to have a good relationship, just an understanding of your own personality and how it does or does not work with other personality types. Niche's statement wasn't literal, but a figurative statement expressing the idea that the Enlightenment had "killed" the possibility in a belief in any god having ever existed. Aside from being allegorical, his statement didn't espouse any sort of hate or distaste for a higher power, just his personal belief that by attaining enlightenment, religion was less necessary.
@Spender Traynham If humans never existed 2+2 wouldn't be a thing.....how are you so confused about this!? Truth and logic isn't something you can go to the store and buy, who can't hold it. Its a human concept, its created in our minds.
Jacob Lee truth is not created in our minds. we didn’t invent the laws of mathematics or logic. Natural law would occur in the world if humans never existed. We ascribe words to it so we can comprehend and communicate it, but we’re describing phenomena that exist apart from ourselves
If God exists, and He is the embodiment and source of perfect dignity and perfect unconditional love, then, Gods existence and Gods nature is objectively true. It's also objectively true that dignity and unconditional love (ie God) universally benefits everyone.
Following the same logic, if God exist, he is the embodiment of absolute cruelty and evil, the most terrible thing in existence and responsible for it.
@@FallenPasha (Just my own beliefs, opinions &/or general theories)... Personally, I believe Christ's grace reaches everyone. Imo, hell is the natural reality for everyone, who is left to their own devices for eternity. I believe that only an eternally perfect mind and heart is capable of existing peacefully for all eternity. Any mind and heart that exists eternally, that lacks absolute perfection will succumb to an eternally progressive reality driven by fear. And, my theory is that once we physically die and exit the physical plane of existence, our immortal nature may enter the quantum, subtle dimensions of reality... whereas, our thoughts and feelings (nearly instantaneously) interact with and manifest the experience of our reality. Thus, any fear within the individual heart would manifest such fears into their actual experiential reality. Thence, the fear would compound and endlessly increase over the span of eternity. This would create a increasingly more hellish reality until it reached the greatest conceivable fear based reality (sufficating, isolated, hopeless, lost, doomed tormented, terrified, and burning on fire, head to toe, yet incapable of ever dying). However, I personally believe that Christs saviorship picks up the tap for each of us. Wherever we lack a perfect mind and heart, Christ overcomes our shortcomings for us, by responding with perfect love, humility and dignity. Thus, in such a case, God would only be a Being and source of perfect love and dignity, and not evil at all.
@@lewis72 He/she said honesty is objective truth. What he/she wrote didn't really defeat the statement: "objective truth revolves around God". WHAT is honest is true, yes but it's redundant, and begs the question; the question is WHERE not WHAT. Objective truth cannot come from objective truth, that's circular reasoning; and: "because it is" is never a good answer. Objective Truth comes from God through your FIVE SENSES, which is a gift from God. Without your five senses, the things that you know would have never been known in the first place. Everything we know is because we were taught or because we saw.....or feel, tasted, or smelled. In an atheistic world it is about convincing and trust when it comes to truth; but how can you trust your five senses without God? Your five senses indicates intention and purpose. Always! JESUS IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
@@shamaYahu8635 "Objective Truth comes from God" - How did you arrive at that ? "how can you trust your five senses without God?" - Repetitive confirmation. However, regardless of religious conviction, many people's senses fail them at times. "Your five senses indicates intention and purpose. Always! JESUS IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH." - Baseless nonsense.
2 + 2 = 4 only under piano axioms or set theory axioms. It is not true on itself. Any mathematician can tell you that. Also, without our experience of the world we would have no way of developing mathematics, so it is not a completely ideal thing like some would like to believe.
"The universe doesn't exist yet" would have been a truth statement in the mind of God. The universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship. So definitely, logic is a reflection of God's mind.
When there were no human minds, well, there weren't any human minds to construct the laws of logic. There were no humans to create the proposition, there are no human minds. Which makes this an impossible (contradiction) hypothetical scenario. The classical laws of logic also aren't the same thing as say, the laws of physics or gravity etc because these things have causal powers that are exerted over other things. Logic has no such powers, logic is descriptive and not prescriptive. It describes how reality works. And the laws of logic are necessarily that way meaning they couldn't have been otherwise because reality isn't otherwise.
Sometimes I think Frank Turek just confuses himself. Logic is conceptual. It requires a mind. If no sentient beings exist, then no logic exists. It's like asking, "If no sentient beings exist, would love, happiness or anger exist?" No, of course not! These things are emotions. If there is no one to feel emotions, then there are no emotions. I really don't know where Frank Turek was going with this.
"It's like asking, "If no sentient beings exist, would love, happiness or anger exist?" No, of course not! These things are emotions. If there is no one to feel emotions, then there are no emotions" This is where you really go wrong here. You are comparing logic to emotions. They aren't at all the same. Logic is purely a description of reality. While emotions clearly are a biological thing. And just because we have evolved to able to understand logic, give it a name, and put it into words, doesn't mean we invented it. What is so hard to understand about that?
@@Tehz1359 All logic is a a reasoning process. It's a concept. So, as such logic require a mind. Logic would not exist without a mind the same way that the English language would not exist if there were never English speaking people to create it.
@@zeddicuszorrander3599 But without minds the things logic refer to would still be true. The law of Identity would still hold true even if there were no minds. Our minds just recognise the truth of the law of identity and formulate it with A=A. Before minds, rocks were still rocks.
That question at 2:15 is flawed. To answer that question human beings would first need to create the logic needed to answer that question. Before there were any humans logic or questions didn't exist.
For one to become a good evangelist, he should have studied law first or should have a lot of skill in logic. It would make it easier to defend any line in Bible.
The language example completely destroys his own argument. Different languages developed all over the Earth and people speaking different languages are unable to communicate effectively. So there is no one mind creating the rules for language and/or logic, they are different all over the Earth. Sometimes the answers to these types of questions are so blatantly obvious that people who are indoctrinated can't see them and walk straight into a self-defeating trap.
I know this comment is 2 years old but just wanted to point out all humans laugh and it means the same thing. Most of human communication is non verbal not verbal. You can tell if someone is shady just by observing how they act.
@@ccrow3355 All humans laugh is true but.we can’t laugh if we don’t get the joke because it’s in a language we don’t understand and we are unable to communicate the joke effectively. Also, laughter is not a part of language, it’s an emotion like crying.
So no actual argument, just ask why something is true (and ignore if there's a very good reason) and weirdly say "there's gotta be a mind somewhere" and immediately switch to some unrelated Wisconsin story. Doesn't that seem strange to believers that he'd answer like that?
*but...(my uneducated guess is)* what if the whole religion of Christianity is just subjective in its own? Certainly these laws of logic can exist without a god just by referring the God that he talks about as an equation... or just by religion simply not existing in the first place. I mean maybe without God himself 1+1 would still equal to 2 my point is I just think this speaker is just so rooted on the perspective of his own religion that he forgets to consider the rest of all other aspects such as the other religions, science, or the idea of hyperreality or many others that we might not know due to our limited knowledge etc. edit: it might sound mindblowing at first but doesn't satisfactorily sound objective at all *please criticize me... i'm also skeptic about these kinds of things*
An atheist can most definitely argue that Christianity is a set of subjective principles of the early church that was compiled into a book that became the objective standard for all the humans to live by in order to create a unchangeable (objective) rules. The only problem is, you and I am using logic to deduct that. The only problem is they also used the very same logic as us even being from vastly different culture (Jewish), background, time, place, social norms and standards, form of government and way of life. The only problem is, no matter where you go across the earth today, when you spread the gospel, everyone you talk to can appreciate the moral values of the Bible as being true for their “moral compass” also naturally push them in that direction even though,out of a psychological point of view, it is illogical that the “subjective” view of 12 men, 2000 years ago in all these different set of living standards mentioned previously, would be so closely related to these entirely “different” human beings. Where does that relationship come from?
I have no problem with the existence of a God. But I do have a problem with people enforcing their beliefs/dogma about God's will. I believe a God has the power to reveal it's will to those who seek the Will without having a spokesman or representative claiming they know the will of a God. People for the most part, myself included, believe what they want to believe. Embrace the freedom to choose how to live. I think it's absolutely sick what people have done in the name of God.
Ya he does, and he also gave us the bible. I think its absolutely sick what people have done in the name of atheism. Have fun with your eugenics and communism.
@@asleep0w0 l would like to know. Saved from what? An angry God who created us as sinners? Is it moral not to sin because you want to be saved from being a natural sinner. Oh well I don't have confidence in another sinful human to interpret God's Will. I think God knows the heart.
I agree that the laws of physics, logic, math, and science exist outside of human minds. That doesn't automatically mean that they exist in someone else's mind though. In fact, those laws are simply how we understand the universe around us. It is like an ant can use logic to say that it lives in an anthill that exists outside of its own conscious being, but that doesn't mean that the anthill must exists in the mind of a more powerful being. Also, what about moral truth which I'm sure is what you mean by "Truth?" Sure, everyone agrees that 2+2 = 4 but can everyone agree that abortions are evil? Can everyone agree that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is either right or wrong? What about homosexuality, doubting a religion, the death penalty, killing animals, or divorce? What is objectively true and how do you know without saying, "I believe?" "The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Music by A.D Comment on first paragraph: Where could those laws come from then without a lawgiver? Comment on second paragraph: I can honestly say that is a complex and long answer, but I will give the short version. The two greatest commandments are first: love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and second: love your neighbor as yourself. Even though someone may not have the written law from God, that person does by nature the law, which is the basic law that is written on that person’s heart. Every single human being has this, which deals with morality between each other. The laws that relate between God and man specifically have either not been revealed and/or has denied the rule of that law on that person’s life. I would recommend reading Romans 1-2 with a more detailed explanation. Without mentioning the Bible, it is the result of people’s experiences and passions and desires, tradition, history, etc.
Last thing, would you do something you didn’t actually believe yourself? We either believe things or we don’t. You either believe in yourself, or you don’t. We believe everyday. Therefore, don’t we always say, ‘I believe’?
daniel faust First comment: Laws must come from a lawgiver but the "laws" of the universe are not actual laws. The laws that derive from lawmakers can be broken while the laws of physics never are. That is because the laws of physics are whatever we observe in the universe. If gravity on another planet is different from gravity on Earth, we don't prosecute the planet for breaking the laws of physics but we find out why physics behaves that way on that planet. Comment 2: If the law of God is written on everyone's heart and it appears that everyone is safe believing whatever they want as long as they love each other and their gods, then what is Christianity if not another equally valid religion? If foreign Muslims, Hindus, or Pagans are safe by practicing their faiths and promoting the betterment of humanity, then what makes your religion special? Comment 3: Everything isn't a belief and there is such thing as objective truth. It is objectively true that planets orbit the sun and that water freezes at 0° Celsius. I don't have to believe those things because they are true regardless of human intervention or desire. However, to say that everyone should have free health care or that gun rights are important, requires belief that is strictly tied to human intervention and desire. Basically, if it isn't a universal truth, then it is a belief.
Music by A.D Comment 2: In regards to salvation, it is only found in Jesus Christ by believing in him and who He his as declared by Him. I can’t judge outsiders, but I can tell you the truth in regards to salvation. In order for people to be saved, law is not enough. There is also grace, the forgiveness of sins. For today, it is found in Christ alone. We also should forgive others as He has forgiven us. Before Christ, it was through faith in God with the Law and the Prophets. Before the Law and the Prophets, I am not 100% sure. I’m still studying and learning about that. There have been different covenants that God has made with man through the dawn of time.Christianity is unique because of Jesus Christ fulfilling the law and the prophets showing himself to be God in the flesh. Some things are easier to believe than others because of the condition of the heart. I would refer you to the Parable of the Sower. I would also recommend reading the book of Romans, especially chapters 1-3.
The laws of logic, math, and science don't need to come from a mind. It is in the objects themselves. So, you say maybe the objects and it's properties were created by a mind, and that mind is the mind of God. But, that's not necessary, and that's an assumption. You will have to find this mind that creates objects an it's properties to prove that that mind exists. 2+2=4 for most objects. But, if you are adding waves or phase shifts, 3+4=5, not 7. It adds up like the Pythagorean right triangle formula. Waves add differently than particles. If you are adding things that are effected by relativity, then the speed of light is constant, so you can't go faster than the speed of light. So, math is different for objects that go close to the speed of light. So, math changes depending on the objects because math describes reality. You can define different kinds of math that is internally consistent, but does not apply to anything. That math will be useless, or even wrong.
I don't think you sufficiently satisfied the question. The question in short was, How can you prove that truths exist? It kinda felt like you were going that way, but then rabbit trailed a little bit.
I've heard Frank say before that when someone declares that ...."there is no truth" ask them is that statement true?? 😂😂😂 because if there is no truth, then the statement "there is no truth" is not true either!!..this shows them that it's a self defeating and illogical view to hold.
The statement "no humans exist(ed)" would be true, but where is the mind to utter such a statement? That is the inferred element here. There is no correlation between the truth of the statement "no humans exist(ed)" and a god making the statement.
nickj14711 what credible evidence would convince you of His existence? Based on your convictions, what credible evidence has convinced you that He doesn’t exist?
nickj14711 I would like to ask you a couple more questions to understand what you are looking for. Are you looking for physical evidence of God existing or non-physical evidence of God existing? If physical, you personally need to read the 4 gospels or one of them. Pick one, and if you have questions, I could go over it with you over FaceTime or a phone call. I might even make my own channel. The short version is this: The physical evidence of God is shown by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that only through him could people know God. His exact words were, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can come to the Father except through Me”. Your questions are questions that go back to Jesus time. Even the majority of His own disciples didn’t believe until after the resurrection. Therefore, it is through Jesus’s words that people would come to know him as the Messiah, The Son of God, God in the flesh. The Bible itself, especially the New Testament, is historic data. Frank Turek is trying to help you others what the physical evidence is. If you have a counter claim to this data, you should back it up in kind, historic data. If non-physical evidence of God existing (just mere Reason alone), it would be like the Moral Argument, Law if Non-Contradiction, Fine tuning Argument, etc). You can question the Bible’s reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness all you want, but I would encourage you to read and question Jesus’s words. It is only He alone that can save. He saved me, and He can save you too. If you truly want to know God with all your heart, lay down all you know and have heard and listen to Jesus, especially the Parable of the Sower. I am directing you toward the only person who can give you what you are asking for, Jesus Christ. Is it possible to believe? Yes. I am telling you this with all honesty. I hate lies. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ that you may come to the knowledge of God through Him alone.
nickj14711 I have tried to reply to this message twice on UA-cam, and it is very frustrating. Look Nick, if you have truly responded to the Gospel and became an atheist, that is your decision you have made. I don’t think anything can convince you that God exists, but I never give up on anyone. Creation makes itself evident that there is a Creator. Either the universe and everything in it has a beginning showing there to be the God in the Bible, or everything has existed for eternity showing there to be no God. The evidence we have now today points to that there is a beginning, proving God’s existence. You may say that is speculation because there is no physical proof, but it is logically and reasonably sound. God is Spirit meaning invisible. The two huge main evidences of His involvement is His miracles of Creation and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Some miracles are also being done today. However, if you have accepted that there is no God and don’t want to know Him, I don’t think that a miracle would convince you or not. If you know the nature of something, you will know the standard for it’s existence. Yet you claim to not know God, so how can you apply that standard to Him? If you want to know God, keep His commandments, and to have eternal life, believe in the Gospel, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and believe in Jesus words and who He says He is. You will receive the Holy Spirit at that moment. Afterward, I would recommend reading, understanding, meditating, and applying the book of John and the rest of the Bible. I was recommended to read John first. We are saved from sin and death, separation from God and physical death. How? Jesus Christ’s life shows that He lived a perfect life, making Him a perfect sacrifice for all sin. A perfect, spotless lamb was required for sacrifice to receive the temporary covering for forgiveness of sins year after year in the Old Testament. His death shows that He bore the penalty for our sin showing His mercy and love for us. His resurrection shows that God accepted the sacrifice for all sin, death is conquered, and by believing we will receive new life in His name. Also, when we die, we will also be resurrected like Christ. We also receive the Holy Spirit, who is given to us to convict us of sin, to guide us into all truth, and to comfort us. Those who have the Holy Spirit are His. All sin has been forgiven since God lives in eternity. Everything is present to Him since He is timeless. This is how we overcome sin and the world, by the Blood of The Lamb covering our sin and our testimony. Satan will do everything he can to undermine God’s truth in our lives, so stay on watch, but do not be afraid of evil (if you remember Psalms, you will get the not being afraid of evil).
nickj14711 John 3:19-21- The condemnation from John 3:18 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Such obvious sophistry. Just really, really poor philosophy. These claims do nothing. Or make no sense. Take your pick of any one of the three (3) below ideas: === (1) Turek claim: The laws of logic are part of God's nature. (Why? They just are.) Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of the universe's nature. (Why? They just are.) Turek claim: The laws of logic are part of God's mind. Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of human minds. The difference between these equivalent claims is that nobody disputes the existence of the universe. ==== ======= (2) 2:14 Turek: "I said OK let me ask you this question then. Before there were any human beings on the Earth, was the statement 'There are no human beings on the Earth' true? ... He finally admitted 'Yes, it would be true.' " No, Dr. Turek, obviously that statement is not true. Surely you miscommunicated your intention? Before there were any humans on the Earth the existence of the "statement" in question is an impossibility, because you can't have statements without someone to make them, and you precluded that possibility in the scenario you posed. And because the existence of the statement is impossible, I don't think anybody with a brain would say that something "impossible" could "be true". Now, if you meant to say, instead, "Well, we just know there was a God before humans existed on the Earth, so obviously the statement, if uttered by God, would have been true" then obviously anyone with a brain would agree to the last part, just not to the former part, which you just magically poofed into existence in this scenario. ======== ====== (3) Turek is big on this idea that laws are grounded in a mind. Well, in this geometric arrangement model, which Turek, not the secular thinker, is constructing by his use of the word "ground", you are placing the laws of logic as *dependent* upon the existence of the mind of God: Laws of Logic (dependent) | | God's mind (ground) Let's just think about this for two seconds, though it's pretty shameful it should take even that long to see how fallacious this is. This geometric arrangement implies there is an area of God's mind that is not constrained to the laws of logic, as they are dependent (this unconstrained area is the area labeled "ground" in this diagram). Ergo, as Frank tried to point out with his purposefully faux communication recalcitrance to make a point, this leads to absurdities, such as the idea that square circles can exist and other things that violate the law of non-contradiction. Obviously, this disproves itself. Let's say that you take the alternate view, and you geometrically arrange the diagram like this: God's mind (dependent) | | Laws of Logic (ground) Well, theists, particularly this brand of apologists who make these sophist arguments, don't like this, because it places properties of the universe as independent of God, and they don't want that. So they just reject it outright (even though this is pretty clearly the appropriate diagram for any coherent thought even if God exists). What they usually try to do is a classic sophistic retort, saying "The Laws of Logic are 'a reflection of God's nature' ". So let's get this straight. They are calling the laws a "reflection"...? You mean, like, a mirror? Like the image in a pond? Well, that means God exists independently of this other existing thing that is acting like a mirror. Obviously, they wouldn't like that, since it places the laws outside of God. So then do they mean that God IS the laws of logic? I don't think so - Christians wouldn't say they "worship the Laws of Logic", would they? They're not *panentheists* are they? Anyone should be able to see this is just a rehashing of the Euthyphro Dilemma, and the Greeks had that all sorted out thousands of years ago. If you want some good philosophy on that point go read Plato. =========
"Turek claim: The laws of logic are part of God's nature. (Why? They just are.)" What does why have to do with this? The question "why" doesn't prove or disprove anything. "Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of the universe's nature." Well then you have to answer where the universe came from if you want to make that claim. If you say it always existed, you would be wrong, because you would even be arguing against your own scientific secularism... "Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of human minds." Here you are just plainly wrong. Logic exists outside of human minds. Its not based on whether or not there are humans to understand it... "No, Dr. Turek, obviously that statement is not true. Surely you miscommunicated your intention? Before there were any humans on the Earth the existence of the "statement" in question is an impossibility, because you can't have statements without someone to make them, and you precluded that possibility in the scenario you posed. And because the existence of the statement is impossible, I don't think anybody with a brain would say that something "impossible" could "be true"." Ummm, no lol. That statement is true whether or or not someone can understand it or not. Something being true doesnt require anyone to be there to understand it...
@@GTRKT-qr5sf 1. The statement cannot be *true* if the statement *cannot exist* - and the statement *obviously* cannot exist if, as Frank *explicitly* qualified, there is nobody around to make it (i.e. "before there were any humans on the Earth"). You can't even _have_ "statements" if there are no minds on Earth around to make them, and asking "but is the statement true or not?" *cannot* even be a _coherent_ question if you _preclude_ the existence of minds which are necessary to generate those statements. The statement "there was water in the ocean before humans" IS a true statement TODAY, and it was always true that there was water in the ocean. But a _statement_ is not the same as the referent _thing_ which it describes; one is an aspect of reality, the other is a label that refers to the aspect. Frank asking "was the statement true before there were humans?" is incoherent - the *statement* DEFINITELY was _not_ true because it _did not even exist_ and it COULD not even have existed because there was nobody around capable of making it. It could have been, and was in fact, TRUE that, for example, water was in the ocean, but the _statement_ "water is in the ocean" was NOT true before human minds were around because _statements themselves_ could not exist and thus the question of their truth or falsehood is moot because non-existent things cannot retain truth or false values. This is very typical of many theistic thinkers - they put the cart before the horse. They have trouble distinguishing between things like _a statement_ and _the aspect of reality_ to which it refers. Frank wants to sit around and say "the statement is true now, and it was true then, THEREFORE, there had to be a _mind_ in which its truth value rested." But he's totally butchering the logic, because he failed to grasp the difference between the _statement_ and the aspect of reality to which it refers. He's magically conjuring God using a non-sequitur and a vacuous assumption that the statement was true back then, therefore, there had to be a mind. It's clearly a completely vacuous argument because the whole point is there is, in fact, no reason to assume that the statement "was true before humans existed" - and in fact quite the opposite. 2. The universe could certainly have "always" existed, and why theists think this is a problem for secular thinkers I don't know exactly. Theists themselves postulate a reality in which reality "always existed" - and they slap a label on their particular model of reality and call it "God," but then if a secular person turns around and says that "reality has always existed" the theist cries foul. It's totally vacuous as an attack. Whatever it even means to say something has "always" existed nobody knows or can comprehend, but the idea of invoking that particular question to settle the question of theism vs. atheism is ridiculous because theists don't have any advantage over atheists in that regard. It is quite plainly false to say that the idea of a universe "always existing" goes against secular scientific principles too because science is not a _completed field of study_ and therefore science cannot _adjudicate_ with the kind of universal certainty you are trying to saddle it with so you can knock down a secular straw man. Science cannot make the kinds of declarations you want to attribute to it - it cannot speak with certainty about the ultimate nature of all reality. All it can do is describe the reality we do observe, and nothing we have observed leads us to conclude that ALL of possible reality could definitely not be eternal, "always there" or whatever other kind of description you want to add. 3. The "Laws of Logic" might or might not exist beyond "minds" (the qualifier 'human' to 'human minds' is wholly unnecessary) - what exactly you mean to say that "the Laws of Logic exist outside of human minds" I don't know exactly. Again though, the point here is that _theists have no advantage in this area_ and Turek doesn't seem to understand that. Whether or not you think that "Laws of Logic" exist WITHIN minds or OUTSIDE of minds doesn't matter, which can be demonstrated as follows: -If you believe that the "Laws of Logic" can exist outside of minds, human or otherwise, then they can exist -_-without a mind-_- period. That completely eviscerates the entire point of this line of questioning theists like Turek take in order to try to suggest that a God-mind is necessary to explain the "Laws of Logic" - because if the "Laws of Logic" can exist outside of minds, human or otherwise, you don't NEED a God-mind to sustain their existence. You YOURSELF -*-directly stated this-*- in your comment: you said that you (believe) "Logic exists outside of human minds"
@@superdog797 1. Yes, that's exactly my point. Did you read my argument? "But he's totally butchering the logic, because he failed to grasp the difference between the statement and the aspect of reality to which it refers". Umm no, I think its way simpler than that... Simply a Freudian slip or he just used the wrong word for that part. You can't always use all of the right words in perfect coherency, and you are well aware of that, especially having long talks and debates as he does. If he simply replaced the word "statement" with "fact" like I said earlier, his argument completely still stands. You are well aware what he was trying to say and made it into a semantics argument. eg. Before there were any humans on earth, was the 'fact' that there are no human beings on earth, true? Or... Was the reality of there not being any human beings on the earth, true? And to both, the answer is yes, based on the evidence we have. Clearly Franks argument still stands. There wont be anyone to confirm that fact, but it stays a fact/reality none the less... 2. We are only getting to the point of asking the atheist what they believe the uncaused first cause is, and since atheistic world views so heavily rely on science, you would be arguing against it if you said the universe always existed. Sure, science isn't a completed field of study, but what's the point of it then if you won't trust that this scientific statement has truth behind it. Why not then throw science out the window then if you are going to go against what all the experts and their equations have come to a conclusion on: that the universe had a start? 3. "That completely eviscerates the entire point of this line of questioning theists like Turek take in order to try to suggest that a God-mind is necessary to explain the "Laws of Logic" - because if the "Laws of Logic" can exist outside of minds, human or otherwise, you don't NEED a God-mind to sustain their existence". No, he never said outside of all minds. His argument is that the Laws of Logic don't exist if it is not for God's mind. God's mind is the only necessary factor in this equation. Laws of logic still exist outside of the human mind, yes like I said here "Logic exists outside of human minds". It can't exist outside of God's mind because God is the creator of it. Without Him, there is no purpose, meaning, logic etc. He is the uncaused first cause, like stated earlier. It's pretty simple to be honest.
@@GTRKT-qr5sf I can tell you are eager to engage with this subject which is quite commendable. However, I think you have several misconceptions, gaps in knowledge or understanding, or weak handles on numerous relevant key facts. While that does sound like an arrogant statement from me, and perhaps even you think that about me, that is my forthright and honest opinion - I think there are several things you're not really grasping or internalizing properly. To fully demonstrate that exhaustively would take too much time right now, and I don't know if it would be worth it for you or me. But I will make the following points, skipping over much potential discussion and explicit description for the sake of brevity: 1. Frank is not misspeaking here, and I am not misinterpreting his intentions. His argument is *literally* nothing more than an _assertion_ that "if reality exists, it needs God, because you can't have a reality without God." That's not an _argument_ - it's just a _belief_ - he _believes_ you can't have a reality with definite properties without a _mind_ in which those properties are grounded. He states this virtually _explicitly_ in the video (go watch it again, it's only 3 minutes). If he wants to just _believe_ that in order for reality to have properties it "just must have a mind!" that's great for him - let him believe whatever he wants! It doesn't constitute an _argument_ for a God. 2. If you want to appreciate cosmology and physics you need to grasp their methodology in a more fundamental way. Turek does not do this at all. Many theists do not. Science does not tell us that there was some kind of known "absolute" beginning, though theists frequently (for some reason) keep saying this is what science does tell us (when it explicitly does *not* tell us this). Go read the Wiki on the Big Bang Theory for yourself, and read the subsection on "Misconceptions" and the subsection on "Pre-Big Bang Cosmology." If scientists thought that "there was nothing before the Big Bang" or anything like that, then they couldn't very well write, theorize or study about something called "Pre-Big Bang Cosmology" could they? No, indeed not. You hold a misconception of what science has discovered and teaches us. It does not say that the universe had a definite origin in the finite past, much less does it make any such statements about "reality" as a whole. All physicists have done is extrapolated backwards in time using the laws of General Relativity and concluded that the universe was in a super hot, super dense, super small-volume, low entropy expanding state, about 14 billion years ago. Beyond that far back in time, NO scientist has ANY business making assertions as to _facts_ about the universe, because none of them HAVE any such facts - we don't have a complete quantum physical theory, and we damn sure haven't unified General Relativity with Quantum Physics, and far more importantly, below the Planck Scale (about 10^-35 meters) we have NO PHYSICAL THEORY whatsoEVER! When the universe was that small (and smaller), we can make _no scientific statement at all_ because we have no KNOWLEDGE of physics at that level. Therefore, the idea that "the Big Bang says there was a beginning to the universe" is *utter nonsense* and propagated only either by people who don't really understand what they are talking about, OR, perhaps sometimes, they might be trying to talk to, say, children and teach or *introduce* them - in an _imperfect_ but _useful_ way - to the theory of the Big Bang. But to take that _oversimplified_ description of the Big Bang and make it into some kind of gospel which no physicist accepts is completely wrong. The fact of the matter is that science does not KNOW anything useful about the ultimate origin of the universe or all of observable reality. But I will make one point to you: Consider the 1st law of thermodynamics: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, though they make convert between the two states. Well, if you take that Law seriously - and physicists DO take it very seriously - they apply it equally no matter what system or theory they are using (be it Newtonian physics, Relativity, OR quantum physical models) the implications of that Law are: A. That the universe is *unambiguously* eternal in the past, because its matter and energy have ALWAYS existed (because they could never have been created or destroyed) and B. That the religious idea of Creation Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing) is contradictory to thermodynamics. I often find that theists who make the kinds of arguments that Frank does rarely have considered these extremely simple and non-controversial scientific principles and implications. But that's not surprising - they're not _scientists_ or _scientific_ in their thinking or education. But that won't stop them from misrepresenting science. 3. I already addressed the question - in my original comment - about whether or not Logic can exist outside of minds. I can only reiterate it so many times before it becomes pointless for me to do so more. The point is that God could not have invented the Laws of Logic, period, because that would imply that there are aspects to God which are not BOUND by the Laws of Logic...which is totally incoherent! You cannot _create_ or _invent_ the Laws of Logic - such "laws" if they exist in any way at all - CANNOT be contingent upon any being or thing, because they are _descriptions_ of the requisite PRE-necessities that much be in place for existence to even make SENSE at all in the first place. God did not exist BEFORE the Laws of Logic - that would be impossible. Neither could God have "created" the Laws of Logic because that would imply he could uncreate them, change them, manipulate them, that there were parts of himself outside or beyond Logic, which makes no sense! That would mean God could both exist and NOT exist at the same time, because there's no Law of Non-Contradiction, etc. No, indeed, the idea that God made Logic is no more coherent an idea than the idea that humans made Logic.
@@superdog797 1. From my understanding, Franks point is that If reality exists, the view that God exists can answer these philosophical questions which the atheistic view cannot. 2. Even if for the sake of your argument, science doesnt point to a beginning in time space and matter, the argument that a supernatural creator that created the universe is a much more plausible and logical argument to me than the universe and its laws just always existed. Ps I never said the universe started with the big bang according to science. As for the point about thermodynamics. God can 100% create a universe out of nothing. He can physically create energy to begin with and set the laws thereafter. He could even be energy that he used from Himself. We dont know... We are just speculating here. There is literally nothing stopping Him from doing so, though. We obviously have no idea what or how such a powerfull and almighty creator could do it because our minds just arent capable to even understand it. 3. Logic and the laws of the universe could definitely be created by God. I would say that the best explanation for Gods nature, is logic. That doesnt mean logic existed before God. It just means they are both Truth... Its definitely possible that God could be outside of Logic but decided to create it and abide by those laws. He could change those laws, but He decided not to when He said that He is the same yeaterday, today, and tomorrow. There are things that God cannot do and that would be illogical things such as creating a square circle, or doing sin. That would be contradictory and because again, Gods nature is that of logic...
"The fool tells himself there is no God." The fact that God used many the world would marginalize and shun is further evidence of His vast superiority to the ways of man. Man's best is but filthy rags to Him. His mercy and grace are abundant in the fact that He even allows us to continue existing. Mankind is reverting back to the dark days of Noah right before our eyes.
That’s truer than ever these days. God bless you, Jack!
@@heavnxbound "His mercy and grace are abundant in the fact that He even allows us to continue existing" Lord have mercy! 💯💯💯🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾 people better wake up ASAP
Low Key we’re living in Sodom and Gomorrah
Which God? 🤣
@@LynzoiDz The Biblical God. The God that most of the world has and believes in.
This completely blew my mind!!!
Same!
This is basic presuppositional apologetics. You should listen to some Greg Bahnsen.
Like a shotgun!
Omg i feel the same…💣
@@1689solas Always somebody one-upping in the comment section.
There is truth and there is fantasy. God is truth. John 14:6.
@Jim Merrilees Why does he
@Mark says: *Can you demonstrate this to be true?*
You demonstrate it to be true by believing (trusting) the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) because when you do such a thing you get verification from God himself through being born again and receiving God's Holy Spirit.
If such a thing isn't demonstrating when you do such a thing then what would you call it?
@Mark says: *Accepting a claim based on faith, I'd call that delusional....not a demonstration.*
The demonstration is what God does by giving you his Holy Spirit after you believe (trust) the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
If you refuse to do your part of the demonstration by believing (trusting) the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) then how can anything even be demonstrated to you?
*It's like you've never done this before.*
I've done this plenty of times.
*Are you familiar with the thought experiment called the Outsider's trust of faith?
Do,you care whether or not your beliefs are true?*
There is NOT a single doubt in my mind that my beliefs are true because they have been confirmed by God himself.
When something is confirmed by God one has no doubts.
@Mark says: *Call the show a little early so they can properly screen the call and get you on air.
I mean, if you're willing to call. The hosts will treat you properly if you extend the same curtesy.*
I won't be making the call because I don't make long distance calls and for me the call is long distance.
wonderful script..... i have but one point, see in this argument i do and i don't
however, perhaps logic is cemented in something greater that human conception but then one could argue a technicality that disrupts that point by saying that reasoning leaves room to conceptualise and if logic and reasoning tend to go hand in hand you'd forfeit your idea of greater conception right? seeing as how we all have reasons for the things we do, we all have justifications and explanations that make our behaviour seem reasonable and logical like why we say things and maybe we do it simply because we can and because we want to but is that not still a reason in itself? so then to my point you must at least concede that individual logic is conceptual
I love the way you handle this particular question. I also love the “Frank”-ness of the way you respond😜😄
We really appreciate who you are & what you do!
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
My mind just exploded.
Me two lol
Praise the Lord... I use the little he gave me.
Glory to him alone. In Jesus Christ mighty name.
😄♥️😄
This is basic presuppositional apologetics. You should listen to some Greg Bahnsen.
Anselm’s ontological argument still lives on using whatever new comes along to throw into the bologna blender.
@@neoneherefrom5836 Anselm's argument is one to make you scream, I am a theist, but sometimes when I think about that argument it just seems a little off, like the idea of God is already in a person's mind, I am not so sure if that is true.
I have used this kind of argument before but never in this way. The way I used it was I tried to use something that even if you were color blind, or some other mental impairment, you would eventually have no choice but to accept it is true like the sun exists or the sun is yellow. They try to get around the point of it but eventually they ditch the argument because it is an objective truth they can't get around. But the way he does it is more interesting because it better thrusts them into a corner that they can't get out of.
The sun is actually white, not yellow. In space, the sun is white. When you look at the sun through the earth's atmosphere, it looks yellow or orange.
But, your point about objective truth is still a good point.
"Blind" arguments from believers typically feel like the person making the argument has absolutely no clue what they're talking about. (Because it's very easy to give a blind person conclusive evidence proving sight exists; there are tons of experiments we can run to prove that to them.)
Meanwhile we have no actual evidence of any gods, and even with basic things like truth (the set of facts about reality), (A) nothing inherently indicates a being is required for truth to exist only that _a reality_ exists and (B) that's why Turek in this video just says for no reason "there's gotta be a mind somewhere", with no real evidence or argument why that would be true.
That's why he immediately derails his own answer immediately after "there's gotta be a mind". Worse, his derailment is really illogical because _logic is defined as an abstract concept._ An idea. So we don't say it exists. If Turek is only saying god is an idea in minds and doesn't actually exist (you know, exactly like the laws of logic) then I'd 100% agree with him. The problem is I suspect Turek believes a god actually exists -- that a god actually shares reality with us.
How does the Sun being yellow (or white, or whatever) prove the existence of some god ?
@@lewis72 Did you even watch the video? They are talking about objective truth which is mentioned in this video...
@@GTRKT-qr5sf
"Did you even watch the video? "
Yes, I also stated in another post:
Very specious arguments.
- "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality.
- 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the implicit definition of 4. The mind behind maths is the human mind... it's a symbolic representation of reality.
- The laws of logic are statements that describe reality and the behaviour of reality.
- The laws of logic are spaceless, timeless and immaterial because they are descriptions of physical entities. Just like "red". They don't exist independently.
- Before there were any human beings on Earth, there could not have been the statement "there are no human beings on the Earth" as there was no one to make that statement.
- "Laws are grounded in a mind" is false... again, they are statements that _describe_ physical behaviour.
- Truths can't exist without a mind because, as I stated _" "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality."_
That's exactly what I've been thinking as a deist, but could never articulate it. This man is brilliant
what made you become a deist? Ive been trying to find a good book on the subject but its hard to find. Also is there such a view as personal deism? I like the idea of deism but I have a hard time wrapping my head around a creator who made everything and doesn't interact with their creation at least on some level, of course maybe theism is already the personal form of deism
@@robertwilson7259 I was a Muslim before but then decided Islam isn't true. I don't believe any current religion is true, but I do believe there is a higher being. I think this being may communicate with us one day, maybe never.
I agree that it doesn't make sense that they would just create the universe and leave us to be, but I think the explanation that there is no higher being makes less sense
What I've always said is this - we understand things now that were incomprehensible to humans 50 years ago. Just because we understand certain things through scientific discovery, doesn't mean the concept of something incomprehensible such as God may exist.
Something such as a God, creator of the universe (and possibly infinite universe's), would be almost impossible for us to truly understand. The majority of us don't even understand the science behind the matter that makes up the screen you are looking at now.
Very specious arguments.
- "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality.
- 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the implicit definition of 4. The mind behind maths is the human mind... it's a symbolic representation of reality.
- The laws of logic are statements that describe reality and the behaviour of reality.
- The laws of logic are spaceless, timeless and immaterial because they are descriptions of physical entities. Just like "red". They don't exist independently.
- Before there were any human beings on Earth, there could not have been the statement "there are no human beings on the Earth" as there was no one to make that statement.
- "Laws are grounded in a mind" is false... again, they are statements that _describe_ physical behaviour.
- Truths can't exist without a mind because, as I stated _" "Truth" is a statement that reflects reality."_
You are presupposing everything is physical when you don’t have any evidence of that claim. You can’t point to logic as something physical. If you are a product of physical processes than you have no free will or accountability, you are just atoms in motion. All civilization is based entirely on ideas and language of free will and accountability so your philosophy is an end to civilization and common language and return to mindless animal tribal savagery without understanding. You don’t accept evidence for philosophy about a mind creating reality, therefore your philosophy is mindless. You can’t accept things of the mind and improving yourself toward a more divine and intelligent standard so you accuse others and adopt behavior that destroys yourself.
Reality according to who?
turek really is a gift from God
Amen!! Indeed, God is the foundation of logic. As Sye likes to say "It's either God or absurdity" :-)
Everyone that debates Sye points out his circular, presuppositional, and flawed logic.
They justify it with logic.
*@nickj14711* Watch the video :-)
*@Nick Jokes* If you watched, then you already HEARD the credible evidence :-)
Stick man Sam - When Frank talks about laws being grounded in a "mind beyond human minds," he his simply stating his beliefs. This "mind" is merely a personification of our ability to hold abstract thought. It's not _actual_ evidence for anything.
God keeps you grounded.
Brilliant Response. God bless u Frank
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
I love this argument......the nature of information
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
Words! We couldn’t talk to our very selves without the use of words. The use of words and our ability to read and communicate through their usage is the very image of God in us. John 1:1
In John chapter 1 verse 1 where it says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God! The "Word" translates from the Greek to the English as Logos which means logic! In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God, and the logic was God! Logic existed before man did was the basis of Franks argument!
True Core
You should no problems getting around the problem of evil then, right?
J Ovesen what problem of Evil are you referring to?
So, logic is God? I thought God was a living being.
@Mark of Excellence Are you sure about that?
That's your definition of Logic. Your _Logic exists within our minds_ therefore logic doesn't exist in Nature. I'm not saying God _only_ exists within our minds but separating God and Logic unnecessarily adds baggage.
It's like you're saying Truth must be illogical therefore our Minds are only logical.
I would have to disagree with that translation however. I'm pretty it's actually "word."
Yes laws of the human minds are grounded in human minds. Without human minds no one can answer what would be. That doesn't mean you get to say therefore God and more specifically your god
God Himself is the ultimate, absolute and objective truth but when it comes to human implication he will always depends on objective truth as God is, which helps us decide to a greater good and greater truth.
How do you know god is the good guy?
@@duran5706 He gave His son Jesus Christ for the sake of the world. We should’ve all burned, but He gave us a chance to be saved. If God wanted to, He could’ve let us all die to our sins, but instead He gave His son for us. I dunno about you, but this is love.
@@leahcimmmm Wow. Your evidence for God being good is he sacrificed his son. That would put you or I in jail.
@@duran5706 Oh, I’m sorry. It looks like I’ve made you misunderstand. That’s just one of the things He did for us. Well, moving on ~~
I know that God is good because well, He’s God. God is the greatest conceivable being. If God is the greatest conceivable being, then He must be omnibenevolent. Now why is that?
Our moral intuitions point to us that good is greater than evil. If good is greater than evil, and God is the greatest, then He must be good. He must be all-good because it is simply greater to be all-good than to be partially good.
Now, if someone was “more good” than Him, then this someone would be greater than Him, no? But how can there be someone greater than the greatest?
@@leahcimmmm I’m more moral than the god you refer to, thankfully.
Without God, there could be no laws of logic.
Without God, there could be no objective truth.
Utter baseless drivel.
We have what we have because of God
nickj14711 you can't even argument with me if you don't believe in God. Just think about it. Your world view does not allow you to say, or even care about it, whether I am right or wrong. Why do you care? Now regarding 'evidence', can you put an immaterial God inside your materialistic world view? If you see a paint you assume there is a painter. If you see a building, you assume there is a builders. It's important you don't deny your concious because you already know there is a God.
nickj14711
Still lurking in Frank Turek video comments I see
I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish. Obviously, you’re not trying to understand a different perspective, and obviously arguing on the internet isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. So what are you doing? I’ve seen you talk down to Christians in the comments for months on end. How can someone be so passionate about God NOT existing?
There is no basis of belief in that though.
nickj14711 - If you became blind you wouldn't be thinking these things. There's the answer to your question of How could a being be immaterial? That is if you're able to think outside your box.
nickj14711 lol because natural force can’t create the big bang if the big bang supposedly created natural force. The cause can’t come after the effect. The only logical option is a supernatural force which is infinite and not limited by time, space or matter. God.
Wonderful! Enjoyed watching! Thank you for sharing! God bless your ministry!
Wow, thanks Frank! Very helpful.
nickj14711 sorry, I didn't ask for your opinion. If you are so sure he's wrong, attend one of his sessions personally and debate him. Everyone can Be a keyboard warrior. Doesn't mean you know much or you're right. Good day
nickj14711 it's obvious you're nothing more than a keyboard warrior. The blessing of your input? Which part of your input was a blessing? Calling someone's submission crap? To me it speaks volumes of your content than his and for that I don't waste my time debating the likes of you. And I know Frank won't either, especially not through the internet. That's what immature teens do. If you want a civil discussion, go see him personally and request an audience.
Something I doubt you've done or will ever do because you really won't be ready to face a learned man like him. You want the easy way, making all the noise while away in person and simply changing the topic whenever you find yourself losing(like you just did with daring me to provide evidence of God) so that you feel good inside for walking away victorious without achieving anything lool. I already read the other comments down there and I immediately identified your type. No, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't ever be ashamed of standing for truth simply because parts of it sound bitter to someone. We will never dilute the message of God and Jesus because 'you feel offended'. I WILL NOT cast my pearls before swine.
You can bother disturbing another target, cos just as your mind is closed towards this message so is my mind closed towards whatever lies you have in store for me.
Ciao! Stay safe. Happy trolling!
nickj14711 sure, suit yourself. Do you feel good yet? Or you want to rant some more? Go ahead. Pour out all the bitterness. Loool. I truly wish I cared. Lemme know when you are done😂😂😂😂
nickj14711 pursue a career as a keyboard warrior. Suits you perfectly. I can bet you 100% you have nothing more to offer other than rants on socia media.
I've met atheists with actually a friendly and open-minded persona and we engaged in civil debates. No rantings, just civil discussions. Those are the respectable ones, not you. You're just trying too hard for attention. I'm only entertaining you because I wanted some comedy to begin my day and I must say you've dished it out perfectly.😂😂😂😂
Looking forward to your LIVE, IN-PERSON, non-social media debate with Dr. Frank. Then just maybe I'll begin to take your kind of atheism seriously. Until then,
Have a nice day again😂😂😂😂
nickj14711 first of all you're a huge liar and I'm glad other readers will come witness this. You're a liar when you say you mirror the tone of the person you're speaking to.
Before commenting, I read your replies on other's comments. Their friendly comments were met with unwholesome harsh language from you 99% of the time. When I did comment, I gave Frank an appreciative remark in a harmless tone and guess who came using a foul language the very first time? No need to answer that, right? Even when I replied it was still harmless. Simply telling you that I did not ask for your opinion was not an insult or harsh in any manner. If indeed you mirror the tone of your opponent, you would have replied my comment in a gentle non-harsh manner, but in every one of your comments you have filled with not less than 5 cuss words. So guess who's rude, arrogant and cowardly. So yeah, you're a big liar!
I know youre type. You resort to insults whenever you are not making sense and want to divert attention. And if you don't delete your comments, even your fellow atheists will be ashamed at the cheap tactics you're using.
You're lying when you say many Christians you speak to are decent and civil. If the comments below are anything to go by, even a goat will see that you're anything but decent and civil.
And I certainly won't answer your questions! Not because I can't, but because of who you have displayed yourself to be. I would gladly do so with someone else who shows he is decent and civil cos I do it all the time . At least with that, we will make headway whiles respect each other's views.
So Mr. Keyboard warrior with nothing better to do with his time, I know your ego has been bruised but you won't show it. You were not expecting someone like me because the ones you're used to only keep quiet to watch you talk nonsense and deliver nothing. The only way you will save your face is to keep spewing cuss words to protect your hyperinflated ego. You're like dark clouds with no rain. Loud but zero content. Defending the indefensible and only cussing to attempt to save face. Pathetic approach and I advise you learn from a more mature sensible atheist and use the right approach.
You have absolutely no interest in what is true either, but lemme point out one TRUE FACT. You sir, are a keyboard warrior with no valuable input whatsoever to make on this platform and are simply hungry for baseless debates on social media. You sir, ARE A TROLL. And you disgust me simply for that reason.
When you're ready to have an open-mind, and will restrain yourself from cuss words, I'll be willing to engage. If not, find another.
Is objective truth the exact opposite of subjective truth? I think what the christian argument is getting at is not an objective truth which can still be relative to point of view but the Absolute truth which is neither subjective nor relative. Atheist would then say that the Absolute can not be ascertained where the believer would say "not ascertained but it can be approached". God is that Absolute. All words that can be said to be "absolutes" like Truth, Justice, Beauty, Love can only be describing one thing because there can be only one Absolute and that is God. Our relative instruments cannot detect it but can follow its trajectory.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
Fantastic presentation!
Great exposé on truth and logic 👍
Brilliant!
@nickj14711 he did. Itatheist are so funny. They get evidence and create any excuse to cut it off. If God were to appear in front of them they would still doubt. Lol atheist deep down know God exists, they just dont want the Christian God to exist because of the moral accountability. And bible says, without faith, it's impossible to please God.
@@ferny9179
Utter rubbish.
There's no evidence for the existence of some god and all of the arguments I've heard for it, including the one in this video, are specious.
"atheist deep down know God exists"
- That's an oxymoron.
"they just dont want the Christian God to exist because of the moral accountability"
- How does that work then ? If I pretend that gravity doesn't exist, can I jump out of a window and survive ?
@@lewis72horrible analogy
Thats really good!! Wow blew my mind
The laws of logic are just descriptions of reality. I would say for anything that exists, it must be itself, not not itself and can’t be itself and not itself at the same time. Requires no mind behind it, just reality.
The Universe has a system of laws governing them even without prior humans existence to make sense of them. Abstract didn't came from nothing, it needs a source if you follow logic, if abstract things are eternal hence an eternal mind is its source.
Following your logic, I would have to add, “Why is a duck? Because ice cream has no bones.”
@@Kaho
"The Universe has a system of laws governing them even without prior humans existence to make sense of them. "
- These laws are _descriptive_ not _prescriptive_ .
@@memowilliam9889
Non sequitur.
@@lewis72
_”I like turtles…”_
did anyone else hear "Hey Bert! Hey Ernie!" When they greeted each other or just me?
hahah
Truths are grounded in reality not minds
That's circular reasoning. Truth and reality are synonymous so how can truth be grounded in reality? Reality according to who? Who's reality?
Wow, deep stuff
well put my brother well put....
Objective truth…sure. That doesn’t mean God exists.
He’s making a leap we can’t make. Religionists will make it. Because A exists doesn’t mean B exists.
To say that truth, or logic must exist in a mind, is an assertion.
So it is also a assertion that god doesn’t exist. :) Atheism is a belief, a lack of belief in god is still a belief in things you can never know for certain.
@@Dobermann89-dr2rc No. To "say" that God doesn't exist, or anything else for that matter, is only an assertion when you provide no evidence, demonstration, production or reproduction, or prediction. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no such thing as god or gods, and nothing more.
@@zipzorp8858
The burden of proof is on you.
I made no claim. So no.@@shamaYahu8635
Human opinion is subjective truth, but because its subjective truth, it is subject to error. The Word of God is objective truth. Human opinion is subjective truth, but because its subjective truth, it is subject to error. Objective truth, on the other hand, is always true and cannot be changed.Proverbs 18:2 ESV / 147 helpful votes HelpfulNot Helpful
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Creation is subjective. How did God arrive at his values to make the ten commandments??? What are the objective purpose of those?!?!?
that's a very good point! WOW :)
Gr8 answer!
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
We communicate with each other based on language; language itself shaped what this guy calls “laws of logic”. Language is one of the most powerful technologies humans ever invented as it is a tool for both thinking and communicating. So yes, we did invent these “laws of logic” he is referring to.
Truthful statements do not, in any way, shape or form, imply the existence of a governing mind.
my fight isn't in the flesh but in principalities.
lord of evil and Lord of good, who do you serve?
lord of evil: lies, addiction, violence, porn, depression, sex confusion, deceiver, profanity, hatred, poorness, pride, lust, gluttony etc
Lord of good: absence of all evil.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:11
Or rather evil is the absence of the Ultimate Source of perfect goodness 🙏 But yes
You were In Gastonia!?!? Whaaaat thats where im at!. I would've came but had no idea you would be there
that dude doesn’t he live there? lol
Same here
So Jesus spoke again: ‘In very truth I tell you, I am the door of the sheepfold.’ I am the door; anyone who comes into the fold through me will be safe. ...
John 10:7, 9 REB
Circular presupposinalist reasoning at it's finest:
1 if objective truth exists, then god exists
2 objective truth exists, because god exists
3 therefore god exists
Not at all. Objective truth can (and that is the crucial word you are missing) only exist because God exist. Otherwise there is nothing objective.
@@albertdupreez9462 that's an unsubstantiated claim. Can you provide a priori knowledge confirming that objectivity only exists within a reality created by a god?
@@He.knows.nothing Through the basic definition of the word. If you want absolute objectivity among billions of humans over thousands of years, humans can have no say in it. This is because anything that a human, or any other being, says from themselves is subjective, and always will be. We as Christians follow the subjectivity of God as the objective standard of living, because as the Creator He knows how we were created and how we are intended to live in order to thrive and not just survive. His laws and the laws of logic is His thought patterns engrained in every one of us, for we are all made in His image.
@@He.knows.nothing So therefore in order to create a set of objective laws in a society is absolutely impossible. If individual humans decide, it is their own subjectivity that are inscribed in law (like chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin). If the majority of people in a society decide, it is the subjectivity shared by the majority that is inscribed (like Nazi Germany on the genocide of Jews, Americans on slavery, South Africans on apartheid). None of the above two sets of principles delivers anything close to objectivity or something close to morality (as the above mentioned historic occurrences are described (subjectively again of course) immoral today). So the only way to establish objectivity once and for all is to have a Being who is never changing and is the supreme Ruler and dominant King. A Creator, who knows His creation and knows what every law and the breaking of every law would cause and what the best would be. And I am here to tell you that He exist. Just like you and no one else can explain where matter and laws of nature comes from, I can’t explain where He comes from. But just by studying medicine I know that a human body is not the result of a random and unguided process.
@@albertdupreez9462 you're talking specifically about moral objectivity, of which you can't even demonstrate to exist because to do implies demonstrating that your specific objective source also exists, which according to your religious claims just so happens to be outside of the spacetime continuum. There is no evidence to falsify your claims, but there is also no evidence to falsify an atheist claim that your dogma, like every other dogma, is not simply an accumulation of subjectively inspired texts designed to construct a religious worldview that explains reality and human values through an objective standard. Unless you can prove that your bible is divine dictation, then it's no different then any other source of objective value.
I'm a moral naturalist myself. It's the idea that moral behaviors are the result of psychological evolution and are subjective to the individual's experience of morality within their own psyche. I do believe, however, that morality can be explained objectively through constructing true or false statements in accordance with any specific definition of morality (for example: "the involuntary imposition of will" as posited by tjump on his youtube). What you define/experience morality to be is subjective, but that doesn't prevent you from constructing that experience into an objective system that filters the subjectivity. Societies use this to codify morality through law and religion and have done so for as long as we can tell. There is no evidence of a society uncovering the undiscovered objective moral truths underlying our reality. We have nothing but religious/philosophical claims in that regard that can't substantiate themselves apriori/aposteriori. Even if you were to substantiate objective morality, you would also have to make the connection from there to your god which is problematic in of itself as there are quite the stockpiles of evidence establishing biblical morality as moral relativism (Discrepancies between covenants. Do into others as you'd have done unto you/owning beating slaves, turn the other cheek/taking virgins as spoils of genocide, I'm sure you've heard the common atheist rebuttals).
I had to listen to this one a few times. LOL!
why laws are grounded in mind? what am i missing..
The point is there will still be laws and concepts governing the universe even if humans don't exists to make sense of them. It means an intelligent mind created these concepts outside of human intelligence, and that intelligent mind is what we call God. This is so Simple to understand.
@Andrew K the statement was, is and will be eternally true. The statement is declared by beings characterised by logic, beings who produce thought. Quite simply, it seems that the water, the plants and the stones (for example) do not think, as we define logic and thought. So, it is not needed the pre-existence of the statement. It is needed the existence of logic. Christianity accepts that God is an eternal being, is the absolute mind and according to His mind everything else exists and because He wanted to create them.
this was a good one
Very well put 👍
It is unfortunate unbelievers will say no law giver required for a law to exist.
Yet here we are with laws.
My response to the atheist not liking what Frank said about no humans existing before there were humans being absolutely logically true.
Truth sounds like hate, to those who hate the truth.
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
Well thought out question
Holy crap, dude! 'Before there were human beings...' blew my mind!
He failed to use sound logic when he spoke of how it was true at one point that humans didn't exist, because he jumped straight to the conclusion that truth requires a mind to exist. The only thing that happens to truth when there are no people is that there are no minds to know what the truth is. Truth is truth with or without a mind to know it.
@@doctorwebman If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?
No, because the very concept of sound necessitates an ear.
😂😂Idk what I'm proving here.
@@jaciemokidm609 "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?":
Yes, it makes a sound, but nobody can hear that sound. Sound is vibrations in matter, and that still happens even if nobody is around to hear it.
@: "But how do you know it does make a sound"
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must be dissipated when the tree falls, and the laws of physics require that sound occurs when a tree falls over in the forest. No faith needed, as there is mountains of evidence that falling trees make sounds.
The laws of logic, math, science are in those objects themselves. Those laws do not come from an external mind. They don't need to.
I can accept that stuff like rape, stealing, lying and murder is objectively wrong, but my question is where did morality come from? Did humans study it and base the objective morality off the proof that stuff like rape, murder, lying and stealing was objectively wrong or did God do it? I really need an answer, I need concrete proof that objective morality originated from God.
PS - I believe that there was a creator for our bodies.
Objective morality had to come from God in order to objective (objective means fact or observable, certain) because if it came from humans, why would they do that in the first place, it would also mean that their "objective truth" is actually subjective because take the constitution it is based of the old testament laws, truth had to have come from the main root of all things and that is God, when Jesus said Lust is also adultery, we now know we all commited adultery because God Himself said so, if it was a random human, that person would face people saying "that's your opinion!" but they can't say that to the creator of the universe. Hope that helped
Thanks. I’ve been worried lately because I used to be very convinced by Christian videos, especially Frank’s but now I’m constantly thinking what if they’re missing things proving that they’re wrong and I see atheists “debunking” him. Can you pray for me to overcome this and become born-again? Please.
@@Nameless-pt6oj Sure
Lord God, Please strengthen JC's heart, to hate to be lukewarm, to accept your grace lord, please guide him/her to understand you and to read your word, Lord guide JC to repent and trust in your Son Jesus to fear you lord, but to not fear the devil, free him/her from the temptations Lord but if the only way for JC to have faith is through temptation, may you guide him/her to resist the devil and flee to you, guide JC to stop doubting and to Grow in faith lord all these I ask in Jesus name. Amen.
Morality evolved as a social phenomena among our specie with the goal of increasing our chances of survival.
As we understood better and better the world and our nature we realised that there are specific rules and principles the objectively make living together possible and increases out chances of survival.
The the result of the historical evolution of those rules and principles is what we call morality.
@@marco_mate5181 Ok so you define morality as what is great for our evolution? Mkay im skeptical about that because why is rape bad? i mean it causes the increase of human population and maybe even speciation so why is it wrong? Its because it invades privacy right? I agree, no one wants to be raped, but that's what science can't explain, why is rape wrong by answering it through science?
awesome
This is Gold
I agree with his statements about logic & it being of universal mind . The only problem is referring that power to a God or deity .especially the god of the Bible . U can accept the truth of universal mind without accepting a deity , especially Christian. Remember that people
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
@@CMVMici concur😂😂😂 that was something else.
God=Logos
Firstly, it's important to note that Franks initial argument makes a category mistake by assuming that minds are substances. In reality, minds are better understood as nominal concepts representing complex physical cognitive phenomena. This argument begins with the unwarranted presupposition that the mind is a substance. Furthermore, it dismisses perspectives such as strict functionalism, physicalism, and reductionism concerning the nature of the mind.
Secondly, the argument sets up a false dilemma between Platonism and Constructivism as a foundation for its claims. This oversimplified approach fails to account for the nuanced positions within philosophy of mind.
Lastly, the argument commits the Existential Fallacy by assuming that merely speaking about something implies its independent existence. This fallacy mistakenly conflates linguistic representations with objective existence.
The argument also makes an equivocation and relies on an argument from ignorance. It asserts that "Before there were human minds, there were still truths," without distinguishing between ontological and epistemological truths. Ontological truth pertains to the objective reality of a statement or proposition, irrespective of human awareness. In contrast, epistemological truth is dependent on the processes of human consciousness. Epistemological truth involves the physical processes occurring within humans, whereas ontological truths relate to physical processes independent of human cognition-the fundamental nature of the world.
To support the Conventionalist View of the Mind:
P1: Under an extreme nominalist and functionalist view of the mind, the mind is not a distinct ontological entity but rather a conceptual label for a complex set of cognitive processes within human substances.
P2: Epistemological truth, which involves the awareness and recognition of propositions as true, is a product of these cognitive processes operating within human substances.
P3: Ontological truth, representing the objective state of the world, exists independently of cognitive functions and human substances.
Conclusion: Consequently, epistemological truth is a process grounded in human substances, specifically their cognitive functions, while ontological truth is grounded in all substances, regardless of cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the argument supports Necessitarianism with regard to the Laws of Logic:
P1: Logical principles are not contingent on external reality but emerge as products of human cognition and language.
P2: Human cognition and language have evolved to develop logical principles as essential tools for understanding the world and facilitating communication.
P3: The structure of human cognition, including information processing, leads to the recognition of certain logical truths as necessary within thought processes.
P4: When individuals engage in logical reasoning, they are not discovering external, objective truths but rather applying inherent rules within human cognition and language.
P5: The necessity of logical principles arises from their integral role in human thought and communication, rather than from any objective, external reality.
P6: Therefore, logical principles are necessary effects within the framework of human cognition and language, challenging the traditional objective/subjective distinction.
God is a concept. That's what I think. Thanks for affirming that Frank.
Wrong.
@@CJ-lr4uq Ok genius.
@@seanhammer6296 Lol it doesn't take a genius to see, Sean.
@@CJ-lr4uq ? Smoke much pot? Doesn't take a genius to see what?
@@seanhammer6296 That God isn't just a "concept" but an actual being. Try to keep up. A "concept" can't create a real, concrete universe. The only one smoking pot here is you, numbnuts.
To be an atheist is to believe in the absurd. That everything just pop out of nothing and that everything is random. Both contradict the laws of the universe.
What's absurd is that theists think that's what atheists must think, but they don't. I don't think the universe popped out of nothing, and it certainly isn't random.
@Whatsisface 4 interesting, so you don’t agree with what other atheists have been saying. Okay, here’s a question for you then: where did everything come from? Coz what Science says that before the big bang there is only the singularity (where space and time didn’t even exist.) And where did these universal laws come from and why does the universe obey them?
@@theobserver3753 I have not seen other atheists say that the universe popped out of nothing and is random. To answer your question, I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, I don't know that the universe "came from". I don't know where the universal laws came from, if they came from anything, maybe the universe is the only way things can be. But in the end, I will follow where the evidence leads.
God is the collective consciousness. Truth is what you choose to believe.
I choose to believe you do not exist. What now?
@@Doc-Holliday1851 Then I do not exist in your matrix
@@安吉夜话-s9d Lol what? you have to be joking😆
My favorite non-Catholic apologists!
Math, science, and logic are processes to predict things.
Math and science is based off logic. What is logic based off?
@@albertdupreez9462 math, science, and, logic are refined process that we use to find the truth. They are based off human experience. (Simplified example) if humans learn that if we have one rock and then we get another rock then we have 2 rocks so based on that we know that 1 + 1 = 2 and as we experience more things we can create more complex processes to learn information and experience things and if rules are created that don’t result in a truth or don’t line up with reality then they are changed so they do. Math, science, and logic are based off collective experience and complex exploration of experiences.
@@MichealQuinm I agree with you. Science and math is a collective “experience” of humans living on this earth. But you said “if rules are created that don’t result in a truth or don’t line up with reality then they are changed so they do”. So if I understand you correctly, humans “experience” the “reality” in the world, which means that there is a reality that humans are studying. That means there is a reality that exists beyond the mind of the human. That means even without humans that “reality” will still be true. Gravity, Newton’s laws and all those extremely logic and vastly complex “realities” will remain true even if there is no humans to study it. Where does this amazingly intelligent reality come from which managed to create beings that now, in a very complex way, is trying to analyse itself?
@@albertdupreez9462 first of all the human mind exists within reality. complex beings came upon through evolution. and we are trying to analyze reality in a complex way because humans have developed a complex way to understand stuff and have benefitted from doing so? also stop putting stuff in quotation marks, its dumb like are you really questioning whether or not we "experience" "reality".
@@MichealQuinm Not at all, I am quoting you to try and show you the flaws in your own reasoning. So reality is a result of non-reality. You are saying that nothing formed matter (going against reality according to the laws of thermodynamics) and then it exploded and formed progressing forms of advancing life (even though the second law of thermodynamics states that with time everything tend towards disorder which is the opposite to creating complex life forms). It is impossible to derive such complexities from an illogically, unguided and random set of events. Beside the physics, where does morality come in, in your illogical, unguided and random based world view?
Can I ask why I should care about god if it exists if it can't scare me into worship and I have a personal reason to hold the belief if it does exist it isn't worth my worship?
God is worth your worship because He is the very standard of good, He is goodness, love, justice, mercy, forgiveness etc.
@@Nameless-pt6oj no, no he isn't, at least not to someone he abandoned if he exists. He's not love to a kid he left to be abused by ignoring prayers, sorry. If god is love there isn't any towards me.
God does love you, don’t forget that He is omniscient, He knows everything and perhaps He allowed those things to happen so that you would grow or help others in some way
@@Nameless-pt6oj dont forget, you have no idea what I have been through or what it did to me.
I know, but God can still take what you’ve been through and use it for good.
Why does there need to be a good to say that 2+2 equals 4? We all have the ability to observe our surrounding. For instance if one has two apples and adds an other two apples one can see that there are four apples. So why the hell should we need a god for that?
amen
I didnot get it is god against objective truth or for it??
I think your asking the question wrong , he IS truth . Its hard to wrap your mind around it but there would be no truth if there was no God.
This is sort of the old question of “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” The problem there is that sound, by definition requires a source, medium, and receiver. Yet, sound waves travel whether or not there is something or someone to receive them. Just as sound requires a source, logic requires a consciousness, which did not exist until humans came about on earth. In that sense, there really was no logic before humans. If any given thing is immaterial, then by definition, it doesn’t exist. By describing god as immaterial, he’s effectively saying that god does not exist. I’m hard pressed to argue otherwise.
Sound is vibration of the air (medium). Tree (source) will create sound. No receiver.
Point is that in atheistic world view every answer draw the another question and you go to infinite regress, ending up with paradox or that you are in Matrix. But nobody live like that nor make their existential decisions.
Christian worldview have infinite being which terminate that regress i.e. God. Atheists choose themselves end of regressions i.e. make themselves the gods. Same do the many other religions, cults, sects.
Just take any sin, they are contradictory to themselves. For example selfishness. If you need to be loved to satisfy your selfishness you need to sacrifice that same selfishness to somebody love you. Or else nobody would like to be around you and you will be miserable person. That is why there is so many broken hearts, marriages, families. You simply cannot trade love, it has to be gift.
Most of atheists hide behind logic and reasoning, but they are mad at God which does not exists, furious if someone call them sinners even if they does not believe in hell etc. Best example is Niche, which started hating and disproving God because women rejected his proposal. And was bitter and angry man whole life.
Even if God does not exists it is only logical way out.
I'm not sure how it's possible to be angry at something you don't completely believe exists. No rational person gets furious at someone calling them a sinner since there's really no such thing as sin, just good and bad. Relationships don't necessarily go bad because of a discord between who is loved more or less or why. Most times it's just a matter of a mismatch between personality types. You don't need religion to have a good relationship, just an understanding of your own personality and how it does or does not work with other personality types. Niche's statement wasn't literal, but a figurative statement expressing the idea that the Enlightenment had "killed" the possibility in a belief in any god having ever existed. Aside from being allegorical, his statement didn't espouse any sort of hate or distaste for a higher power, just his personal belief that by attaining enlightenment, religion was less necessary.
logic doesn’t require a receiver to exist. 2 + 2 would still equal 4 if humans never existed
@Spender Traynham If humans never existed 2+2 wouldn't be a thing.....how are you so confused about this!? Truth and logic isn't something you can go to the store and buy, who can't hold it. Its a human concept, its created in our minds.
Jacob Lee truth is not created in our minds. we didn’t invent the laws of mathematics or logic. Natural law would occur in the world if humans never existed. We ascribe words to it so we can comprehend and communicate it, but we’re describing phenomena that exist apart from ourselves
If God exists, and He is the embodiment and source of perfect dignity and perfect unconditional love, then, Gods existence and Gods nature is objectively true. It's also objectively true that dignity and unconditional love (ie God) universally benefits everyone.
Following the same logic, if God exist, he is the embodiment of absolute cruelty and evil, the most terrible thing in existence and responsible for it.
@@FallenPasha
(Just my own beliefs, opinions &/or general theories)...
Personally, I believe Christ's grace reaches everyone. Imo, hell is the natural reality for everyone, who is left to their own devices for eternity. I believe that only an eternally perfect mind and heart is capable of existing peacefully for all eternity. Any mind and heart that exists eternally, that lacks absolute perfection will succumb to an eternally progressive reality driven by fear. And, my theory is that once we physically die and exit the physical plane of existence, our immortal nature may enter the quantum, subtle dimensions of reality... whereas, our thoughts and feelings (nearly instantaneously) interact with and manifest the experience of our reality. Thus, any fear within the individual heart would manifest such fears into their actual experiential reality. Thence, the fear would compound and endlessly increase over the span of eternity. This would create a increasingly more hellish reality until it reached the greatest conceivable fear based reality (sufficating, isolated, hopeless, lost, doomed tormented, terrified, and burning on fire, head to toe, yet incapable of ever dying).
However, I personally believe that Christs saviorship picks up the tap for each of us. Wherever we lack a perfect mind and heart, Christ overcomes our shortcomings for us, by responding with perfect love, humility and dignity.
Thus, in such a case, God would only be a Being and source of perfect love and dignity, and not evil at all.
Honesty is objective Truth. That which is honest is true.
Because they are both statements that reflect reality.
@@lewis72
That's begging the question
@@shamaYahu8635
What is ?
@@lewis72
He/she said honesty is objective truth.
What he/she wrote didn't really defeat the statement: "objective truth revolves around God".
WHAT is honest is true, yes but it's redundant, and begs the question; the question is WHERE not WHAT.
Objective truth cannot come from objective truth, that's circular reasoning; and: "because it is" is never a good answer.
Objective Truth comes from God through your FIVE SENSES, which is a gift from God. Without your five senses, the things that you know would have never been known in the first place. Everything we know is because we were taught or because we saw.....or feel, tasted, or smelled.
In an atheistic world it is about convincing and trust when it comes to truth; but how can you trust your five senses without God?
Your five senses indicates intention and purpose. Always! JESUS IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
@@shamaYahu8635
"Objective Truth comes from God"
- How did you arrive at that ?
"how can you trust your five senses without God?"
- Repetitive confirmation. However, regardless of religious conviction, many people's senses fail them at times.
"Your five senses indicates intention and purpose. Always! JESUS IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH."
- Baseless nonsense.
thumbs up...PEACE
Perfect
Excellent episode.
2 + 2 = 4 only under piano axioms or set theory axioms. It is not true on itself. Any mathematician can tell you that.
Also, without our experience of the world we would have no way of developing mathematics, so it is not a completely ideal thing like some would like to believe.
If there is no objective truth, is lying immoral?
I don't think the laws of logic are timeless. Cause they didn't exist before the universe.
"The universe doesn't exist yet" would have been a truth statement in the mind of God. The universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship. So definitely, logic is a reflection of God's mind.
@@juilianbautista4067 nonsequitur.
When there were no human minds, well, there weren't any human minds to construct the laws of logic. There were no humans to create the proposition, there are no human minds. Which makes this an impossible (contradiction) hypothetical scenario. The classical laws of logic also aren't the same thing as say, the laws of physics or gravity etc because these things have causal powers that are exerted over other things. Logic has no such powers, logic is descriptive and not prescriptive. It describes how reality works. And the laws of logic are necessarily that way meaning they couldn't have been otherwise because reality isn't otherwise.
Sometimes I think Frank Turek just confuses himself. Logic is conceptual. It requires a mind. If no sentient beings exist, then no logic exists. It's like asking, "If no sentient beings exist, would love, happiness or anger exist?" No, of course not! These things are emotions. If there is no one to feel emotions, then there are no emotions. I really don't know where Frank Turek was going with this.
"It's like asking, "If no sentient beings exist, would love, happiness or anger exist?" No, of course not! These things are emotions. If there is no one to feel emotions, then there are no emotions"
This is where you really go wrong here. You are comparing logic to emotions. They aren't at all the same. Logic is purely a description of reality. While emotions clearly are a biological thing. And just because we have evolved to able to understand logic, give it a name, and put it into words, doesn't mean we invented it. What is so hard to understand about that?
@@Tehz1359 All logic is a a reasoning process. It's a concept. So, as such logic require a mind. Logic would not exist without a mind the same way that the English language would not exist if there were never English speaking people to create it.
@@zeddicuszorrander3599 But without minds the things logic refer to would still be true. The law of Identity would still hold true even if there were no minds. Our minds just recognise the truth of the law of identity and formulate it with A=A. Before minds, rocks were still rocks.
@@Whatsisface4 Yes, that is true.
@@zeddicuszorrander3599 Ah, I think we're on the same page.
That question at 2:15 is flawed. To answer that question human beings would first need to create the logic needed to answer that question. Before there were any humans logic or questions didn't exist.
Positive truth claims is what we need in this day and age. not Philosophy.
For one to become a good evangelist, he should have studied law first or should have a lot of skill in logic. It would make it easier to defend any line in Bible.
The speaker doesn’t know the deference between proscriptive and descriptive laws. Otherwise he is just being dishonest.
The language example completely destroys his own argument. Different languages developed all over the Earth and people speaking different languages are unable to communicate effectively. So there is no one mind creating the rules for language and/or logic, they are different all over the Earth. Sometimes the answers to these types of questions are so blatantly obvious that people who are indoctrinated can't see them and walk straight into a self-defeating trap.
I know this comment is 2 years old but just wanted to point out all humans laugh and it means the same thing. Most of human communication is non verbal not verbal. You can tell if someone is shady just by observing how they act.
@@ccrow3355
All humans laugh is true but.we can’t laugh if we don’t get the joke because it’s in a language we don’t understand and we are unable to communicate the joke effectively. Also, laughter is not a part of language, it’s an emotion like crying.
@@Dr.TJ1 Way to completely ignore the point.
@@ccrow3355
I think you missed the point of the video. It was about spoken language, not body language or expressing emotions.
@@Dr.TJ1 Its like talking to a brick wall.
❤❤❤❤
2 + 2 = 4 = God
Okay....
So no actual argument, just ask why something is true (and ignore if there's a very good reason) and weirdly say "there's gotta be a mind somewhere" and immediately switch to some unrelated Wisconsin story. Doesn't that seem strange to believers that he'd answer like that?
*but...(my uneducated guess is)* what if the whole religion of Christianity is just subjective in its own? Certainly these laws of logic can exist without a god just by referring the God that he talks about as an equation... or just by religion simply not existing in the first place. I mean maybe without God himself 1+1 would still equal to 2
my point is I just think this speaker is just so rooted on the perspective of his own religion that he forgets to consider the rest of all other aspects such as the other religions, science, or the idea of hyperreality or many others that we might not know due to our limited knowledge etc.
edit: it might sound mindblowing at first but doesn't satisfactorily sound objective at all
*please criticize me... i'm also skeptic about these kinds of things*
An atheist can most definitely argue that Christianity is a set of subjective principles of the early church that was compiled into a book that became the objective standard for all the humans to live by in order to create a unchangeable (objective) rules. The only problem is, you and I am using logic to deduct that. The only problem is they also used the very same logic as us even being from vastly different culture (Jewish), background, time, place, social norms and standards, form of government and way of life. The only problem is, no matter where you go across the earth today, when you spread the gospel, everyone you talk to can appreciate the moral values of the Bible as being true for their “moral compass” also naturally push them in that direction even though,out of a psychological point of view, it is illogical that the “subjective” view of 12 men, 2000 years ago in all these different set of living standards mentioned previously, would be so closely related to these entirely “different” human beings. Where does that relationship come from?
Coo coo ppl😂
I have no problem with the existence of a God. But I do have a problem with people enforcing their beliefs/dogma about God's will. I believe a God has the power to reveal it's will to those who seek the Will without having a spokesman or representative claiming they know the will of a God. People for the most part, myself included, believe what they want to believe.
Embrace the freedom to choose how to live.
I think it's absolutely sick what people have done in the name of God.
Ya he does, and he also gave us the bible. I think its absolutely sick what people have done in the name of atheism. Have fun with your eugenics and communism.
@Master Shake For real.
they are trying to save you from your sins... bruh
would you get mad if someone wakes you up because your house is in fire?
@@asleep0w0 l would like to know. Saved from what? An angry God who created us as sinners?
Is it moral not to sin because you want to be saved from being a natural sinner. Oh well I don't have confidence in another sinful human to interpret God's Will. I think God knows the heart.
Shout out to Gastonia and lowell
I agree that the laws of physics, logic, math, and science exist outside of human minds. That doesn't automatically mean that they exist in someone else's mind though. In fact, those laws are simply how we understand the universe around us. It is like an ant can use logic to say that it lives in an anthill that exists outside of its own conscious being, but that doesn't mean that the anthill must exists in the mind of a more powerful being.
Also, what about moral truth which I'm sure is what you mean by "Truth?" Sure, everyone agrees that 2+2 = 4 but can everyone agree that abortions are evil? Can everyone agree that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is either right or wrong? What about homosexuality, doubting a religion, the death penalty, killing animals, or divorce? What is objectively true and how do you know without saying, "I believe?"
"The good thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Music by A.D
Comment on first paragraph:
Where could those laws come from then without a lawgiver?
Comment on second paragraph:
I can honestly say that is a complex and long answer, but I will give the short version. The two greatest commandments are first: love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and second: love your neighbor as yourself. Even though someone may not have the written law from God, that person does by nature the law, which is the basic law that is written on that person’s heart. Every single human being has this, which deals with morality between each other. The laws that relate between God and man specifically have either not been revealed and/or has denied the rule of that law on that person’s life. I would recommend reading Romans 1-2 with a more detailed explanation.
Without mentioning the Bible, it is the result of people’s experiences and passions and desires, tradition, history, etc.
Last thing, would you do something you didn’t actually believe yourself? We either believe things or we don’t. You either believe in yourself, or you don’t. We believe everyday. Therefore, don’t we always say, ‘I believe’?
daniel faust
First comment:
Laws must come from a lawgiver but the "laws" of the universe are not actual laws. The laws that derive from lawmakers can be broken while the laws of physics never are. That is because the laws of physics are whatever we observe in the universe. If gravity on another planet is different from gravity on Earth, we don't prosecute the planet for breaking the laws of physics but we find out why physics behaves that way on that planet.
Comment 2:
If the law of God is written on everyone's heart and it appears that everyone is safe believing whatever they want as long as they love each other and their gods, then what is Christianity if not another equally valid religion? If foreign Muslims, Hindus, or Pagans are safe by practicing their faiths and promoting the betterment of humanity, then what makes your religion special?
Comment 3:
Everything isn't a belief and there is such thing as objective truth. It is objectively true that planets orbit the sun and that water freezes at 0° Celsius. I don't have to believe those things because they are true regardless of human intervention or desire. However, to say that everyone should have free health care or that gun rights are important, requires belief that is strictly tied to human intervention and desire. Basically, if it isn't a universal truth, then it is a belief.
Music by A.D
Comment 2:
In regards to salvation, it is only found in Jesus Christ by believing in him and who He his as declared by Him. I can’t judge outsiders, but I can tell you the truth in regards to salvation. In order for people to be saved, law is not enough. There is also grace, the forgiveness of sins. For today, it is found in Christ alone. We also should forgive others as He has forgiven us. Before Christ, it was through faith in God with the Law and the Prophets. Before the Law and the Prophets, I am not 100% sure. I’m still studying and learning about that. There have been different covenants that God has made with man through the dawn of time.Christianity is unique because of Jesus Christ fulfilling the law and the prophets showing himself to be God in the flesh. Some things are easier to believe than others because of the condition of the heart. I would refer you to the Parable of the Sower. I would also recommend reading the book of Romans, especially chapters 1-3.
More specifically, what makes Christianity unique is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The laws of logic, math, and science don't need to come from a mind. It is in the objects themselves.
So, you say maybe the objects and it's properties were created by a mind, and that mind is the mind of God. But, that's not necessary, and that's an assumption. You will have to find this mind that creates objects an it's properties to prove that that mind exists.
2+2=4 for most objects. But, if you are adding waves or phase shifts, 3+4=5, not 7. It adds up like the Pythagorean right triangle formula. Waves add differently than particles. If you are adding things that are effected by relativity, then the speed of light is constant, so you can't go faster than the speed of light. So, math is different for objects that go close to the speed of light.
So, math changes depending on the objects because math describes reality.
You can define different kinds of math that is internally consistent, but does not apply to anything. That math will be useless, or even wrong.
@a .Vulcan
Yessir!
I don't think you sufficiently satisfied the question.
The question in short was, How can you prove that truths exist?
It kinda felt like you were going that way, but then rabbit trailed a little bit.
*How can you prove that truths exist?*
The question itself presupposes that a true answer exists. There's no getting around it.
yes it does, I see it now.
If it cannot be proven, that is a truth in itself, and therefore must be true.
Thanks Jay
I've heard Frank say before that when someone declares that ...."there is no truth" ask them is that statement true?? 😂😂😂 because if there is no truth, then the statement "there is no truth" is not true either!!..this shows them that it's a self defeating and illogical view to hold.
That's what he does, twists the questions and scripture.
no, the questinons is: "there is no absolute truth"... on which Frank replies..."is that statement absolutely true?"
Thruth can be seeen as relative..
Difficulty explaining or reasoning with philosophical questions doesn't prove the existence of God
No, indeed not. It just shows that theism makes a lot more sense than atheism.
@@albertdupreez9462 not really
The statement "no humans exist(ed)" would be true, but where is the mind to utter such a statement? That is the inferred element here. There is no correlation between the truth of the statement "no humans exist(ed)" and a god making the statement.
Well, I disagree. In today's Left leaning society, we do not really have True, but rather socially/politically expedient positions passed as truths.
Research absolute truth and relative truth and its difference.
This was taught to us during our philosophy classes.
That guys looks like he saw medusa
does truth exist? 2+2=4.....truth ... dang. 🤯🤣
The very foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in the flesh, the Messiah.
nickj14711
what credible evidence would convince you of His existence? Based on your convictions, what credible evidence has convinced you that He doesn’t exist?
nickj14711
I would like to ask you a couple more questions to understand what you are looking for. Are you looking for physical evidence of God existing or non-physical evidence of God existing? If physical, you personally need to read the 4 gospels or one of them. Pick one, and if you have questions, I could go over it with you over FaceTime or a phone call. I might even make my own channel. The short version is this: The physical evidence of God is shown by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that only through him could people know God. His exact words were, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can come to the Father except through Me”. Your questions are questions that go back to Jesus time. Even the majority of His own disciples didn’t believe until after the resurrection. Therefore, it is through Jesus’s words that people would come to know him as the Messiah, The Son of God, God in the flesh. The Bible itself, especially the New Testament, is historic data. Frank Turek is trying to help you others what the physical evidence is. If you have a counter claim to this data, you should back it up in kind, historic data. If non-physical evidence of God existing (just mere Reason alone), it would be like the Moral Argument, Law if Non-Contradiction, Fine tuning Argument, etc).
You can question the Bible’s reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness all you want, but I would encourage you to read and question Jesus’s words. It is only He alone that can save. He saved me, and He can save you too. If you truly want to know God with all your heart, lay down all you know and have heard and listen to Jesus, especially the Parable of the Sower. I am directing you toward the only person who can give you what you are asking for, Jesus Christ. Is it possible to believe? Yes.
I am telling you this with all honesty. I hate lies. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ that you may come to the knowledge of God through Him alone.
nickj14711
I have tried to reply to this message twice on UA-cam, and it is very frustrating.
Look Nick, if you have truly responded to the Gospel and became an atheist, that is your decision you have made. I don’t think anything can convince you that God exists, but I never give up on anyone.
Creation makes itself evident that there is a Creator. Either the universe and everything in it has a beginning showing there to be the God in the Bible, or everything has existed for eternity showing there to be no God. The evidence we have now today points to that there is a beginning, proving God’s existence. You may say that is speculation because there is no physical proof, but it is logically and reasonably sound. God is Spirit meaning invisible. The two huge main evidences of His involvement is His miracles of Creation and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Some miracles are also being done today. However, if you have accepted that there is no God and don’t want to know Him, I don’t think that a miracle would convince you or not.
If you know the nature of something, you will know the standard for it’s existence. Yet you claim to not know God, so how can you apply that standard to Him? If you want to know God, keep His commandments, and to have eternal life, believe in the Gospel, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and believe in Jesus words and who He says He is. You will receive the Holy Spirit at that moment. Afterward, I would recommend reading, understanding, meditating, and applying the book of John and the rest of the Bible. I was recommended to read John first.
We are saved from sin and death, separation from God and physical death. How? Jesus Christ’s life shows that He lived a perfect life, making Him a perfect sacrifice for all sin. A perfect, spotless lamb was required for sacrifice to receive the temporary covering for forgiveness of sins year after year in the Old Testament. His death shows that He bore the penalty for our sin showing His mercy and love for us. His resurrection shows that God accepted the sacrifice for all sin, death is conquered, and by believing we will receive new life in His name. Also, when we die, we will also be resurrected like Christ. We also receive the Holy Spirit, who is given to us to convict us of sin, to guide us into all truth, and to comfort us. Those who have the Holy Spirit are His. All sin has been forgiven since God lives in eternity. Everything is present to Him since He is timeless. This is how we overcome sin and the world, by the Blood of The Lamb covering our sin and our testimony. Satan will do everything he can to undermine God’s truth in our lives, so stay on watch, but do not be afraid of evil (if you remember Psalms, you will get the not being afraid of evil).
nickj14711
John 3:19-21- The condemnation from John 3:18
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Such obvious sophistry. Just really, really poor philosophy. These claims do nothing. Or make no sense. Take your pick of any one of the three (3) below ideas:
===
(1)
Turek claim: The laws of logic are part of God's nature. (Why? They just are.)
Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of the universe's nature. (Why? They just are.)
Turek claim: The laws of logic are part of God's mind.
Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of human minds.
The difference between these equivalent claims is that nobody disputes the existence of the universe.
====
=======
(2)
2:14
Turek: "I said OK let me ask you this question then. Before there were any human beings on the Earth, was the statement 'There are no human beings on the Earth' true? ... He finally admitted 'Yes, it would be true.' "
No, Dr. Turek, obviously that statement is not true. Surely you miscommunicated your intention? Before there were any humans on the Earth the existence of the "statement" in question is an impossibility, because you can't have statements without someone to make them, and you precluded that possibility in the scenario you posed. And because the existence of the statement is impossible, I don't think anybody with a brain would say that something "impossible" could "be true".
Now, if you meant to say, instead, "Well, we just know there was a God before humans existed on the Earth, so obviously the statement, if uttered by God, would have been true" then obviously anyone with a brain would agree to the last part, just not to the former part, which you just magically poofed into existence in this scenario.
========
======
(3)
Turek is big on this idea that laws are grounded in a mind. Well, in this geometric arrangement model, which Turek, not the secular thinker, is constructing by his use of the word "ground", you are placing the laws of logic as *dependent* upon the existence of the mind of God:
Laws of Logic (dependent)
|
|
God's mind (ground)
Let's just think about this for two seconds, though it's pretty shameful it should take even that long to see how fallacious this is. This geometric arrangement implies there is an area of God's mind that is not constrained to the laws of logic, as they are dependent (this unconstrained area is the area labeled "ground" in this diagram). Ergo, as Frank tried to point out with his purposefully faux communication recalcitrance to make a point, this leads to absurdities, such as the idea that square circles can exist and other things that violate the law of non-contradiction. Obviously, this disproves itself.
Let's say that you take the alternate view, and you geometrically arrange the diagram like this:
God's mind (dependent)
|
|
Laws of Logic (ground)
Well, theists, particularly this brand of apologists who make these sophist arguments, don't like this, because it places properties of the universe as independent of God, and they don't want that. So they just reject it outright (even though this is pretty clearly the appropriate diagram for any coherent thought even if God exists). What they usually try to do is a classic sophistic retort, saying "The Laws of Logic are 'a reflection of God's nature' ".
So let's get this straight. They are calling the laws a "reflection"...? You mean, like, a mirror? Like the image in a pond? Well, that means God exists independently of this other existing thing that is acting like a mirror. Obviously, they wouldn't like that, since it places the laws outside of God. So then do they mean that God IS the laws of logic? I don't think so - Christians wouldn't say they "worship the Laws of Logic", would they? They're not *panentheists* are they?
Anyone should be able to see this is just a rehashing of the Euthyphro Dilemma, and the Greeks had that all sorted out thousands of years ago. If you want some good philosophy on that point go read Plato.
=========
"Turek claim: The laws of logic are part of God's nature. (Why? They just are.)" What does why have to do with this? The question "why" doesn't prove or disprove anything.
"Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of the universe's nature." Well then you have to answer where the universe came from if you want to make that claim. If you say it always existed, you would be wrong, because you would even be arguing against your own scientific secularism...
"Secular claim: The laws of logic are part of human minds." Here you are just plainly wrong. Logic exists outside of human minds. Its not based on whether or not there are humans to understand it...
"No, Dr. Turek, obviously that statement is not true. Surely you miscommunicated your intention? Before there were any humans on the Earth the existence of the "statement" in question is an impossibility, because you can't have statements without someone to make them, and you precluded that possibility in the scenario you posed. And because the existence of the statement is impossible, I don't think anybody with a brain would say that something "impossible" could "be true"."
Ummm, no lol. That statement is true whether or or not someone can understand it or not. Something being true doesnt require anyone to be there to understand it...
@@GTRKT-qr5sf 1. The statement cannot be *true* if the statement *cannot exist* - and the statement *obviously* cannot exist if, as Frank *explicitly* qualified, there is nobody around to make it (i.e. "before there were any humans on the Earth"). You can't even _have_ "statements" if there are no minds on Earth around to make them, and asking "but is the statement true or not?" *cannot* even be a _coherent_ question if you _preclude_ the existence of minds which are necessary to generate those statements. The statement "there was water in the ocean before humans" IS a true statement TODAY, and it was always true that there was water in the ocean. But a _statement_ is not the same as the referent _thing_ which it describes; one is an aspect of reality, the other is a label that refers to the aspect. Frank asking "was the statement true before there were humans?" is incoherent - the *statement* DEFINITELY was _not_ true because it _did not even exist_ and it COULD not even have existed because there was nobody around capable of making it. It could have been, and was in fact, TRUE that, for example, water was in the ocean, but the _statement_ "water is in the ocean" was NOT true before human minds were around because _statements themselves_ could not exist and thus the question of their truth or falsehood is moot because non-existent things cannot retain truth or false values.
This is very typical of many theistic thinkers - they put the cart before the horse. They have trouble distinguishing between things like _a statement_ and _the aspect of reality_ to which it refers. Frank wants to sit around and say "the statement is true now, and it was true then, THEREFORE, there had to be a _mind_ in which its truth value rested." But he's totally butchering the logic, because he failed to grasp the difference between the _statement_ and the aspect of reality to which it refers. He's magically conjuring God using a non-sequitur and a vacuous assumption that the statement was true back then, therefore, there had to be a mind. It's clearly a completely vacuous argument because the whole point is there is, in fact, no reason to assume that the statement "was true before humans existed" - and in fact quite the opposite.
2. The universe could certainly have "always" existed, and why theists think this is a problem for secular thinkers I don't know exactly. Theists themselves postulate a reality in which reality "always existed" - and they slap a label on their particular model of reality and call it "God," but then if a secular person turns around and says that "reality has always existed" the theist cries foul. It's totally vacuous as an attack. Whatever it even means to say something has "always" existed nobody knows or can comprehend, but the idea of invoking that particular question to settle the question of theism vs. atheism is ridiculous because theists don't have any advantage over atheists in that regard. It is quite plainly false to say that the idea of a universe "always existing" goes against secular scientific principles too because science is not a _completed field of study_ and therefore science cannot _adjudicate_ with the kind of universal certainty you are trying to saddle it with so you can knock down a secular straw man. Science cannot make the kinds of declarations you want to attribute to it - it cannot speak with certainty about the ultimate nature of all reality. All it can do is describe the reality we do observe, and nothing we have observed leads us to conclude that ALL of possible reality could definitely not be eternal, "always there" or whatever other kind of description you want to add.
3. The "Laws of Logic" might or might not exist beyond "minds" (the qualifier 'human' to 'human minds' is wholly unnecessary) - what exactly you mean to say that "the Laws of Logic exist outside of human minds" I don't know exactly. Again though, the point here is that _theists have no advantage in this area_ and Turek doesn't seem to understand that. Whether or not you think that "Laws of Logic" exist WITHIN minds or OUTSIDE of minds doesn't matter, which can be demonstrated as follows:
-If you believe that the "Laws of Logic" can exist outside of minds, human or otherwise, then they can exist -_-without a mind-_- period. That completely eviscerates the entire point of this line of questioning theists like Turek take in order to try to suggest that a God-mind is necessary to explain the "Laws of Logic" - because if the "Laws of Logic" can exist outside of minds, human or otherwise, you don't NEED a God-mind to sustain their existence. You YOURSELF -*-directly stated this-*- in your comment: you said that you (believe) "Logic exists outside of human minds"
@@superdog797 1. Yes, that's exactly my point. Did you read my argument?
"But he's totally butchering the logic, because he failed to grasp the difference between the statement and the aspect of reality to which it refers". Umm no, I think its way simpler than that... Simply a Freudian slip or he just used the wrong word for that part. You can't always use all of the right words in perfect coherency, and you are well aware of that, especially having long talks and debates as he does. If he simply replaced the word "statement" with "fact" like I said earlier, his argument completely still stands. You are well aware what he was trying to say and made it into a semantics argument.
eg. Before there were any humans on earth, was the 'fact' that there are no human beings on earth, true? Or... Was the reality of there not being any human beings on the earth, true? And to both, the answer is yes, based on the evidence we have. Clearly Franks argument still stands. There wont be anyone to confirm that fact, but it stays a fact/reality none the less...
2. We are only getting to the point of asking the atheist what they believe the uncaused first cause is, and since atheistic world views so heavily rely on science, you would be arguing against it if you said the universe always existed. Sure, science isn't a completed field of study, but what's the point of it then if you won't trust that this scientific statement has truth behind it. Why not then throw science out the window then if you are going to go against what all the experts and their equations have come to a conclusion on: that the universe had a start?
3. "That completely eviscerates the entire point of this line of questioning theists like Turek take in order to try to suggest that a God-mind is necessary to explain the "Laws of Logic" - because if the "Laws of Logic" can exist outside of minds, human or otherwise, you don't NEED a God-mind to sustain their existence".
No, he never said outside of all minds. His argument is that the Laws of Logic don't exist if it is not for God's mind. God's mind is the only necessary factor in this equation. Laws of logic still exist outside of the human mind, yes like I said here "Logic exists outside of human minds". It can't exist outside of God's mind because God is the creator of it. Without Him, there is no purpose, meaning, logic etc. He is the uncaused first cause, like stated earlier. It's pretty simple to be honest.
@@GTRKT-qr5sf I can tell you are eager to engage with this subject which is quite commendable. However, I think you have several misconceptions, gaps in knowledge or understanding, or weak handles on numerous relevant key facts. While that does sound like an arrogant statement from me, and perhaps even you think that about me, that is my forthright and honest opinion - I think there are several things you're not really grasping or internalizing properly. To fully demonstrate that exhaustively would take too much time right now, and I don't know if it would be worth it for you or me. But I will make the following points, skipping over much potential discussion and explicit description for the sake of brevity:
1. Frank is not misspeaking here, and I am not misinterpreting his intentions. His argument is *literally* nothing more than an _assertion_ that "if reality exists, it needs God, because you can't have a reality without God." That's not an _argument_ - it's just a _belief_ - he _believes_ you can't have a reality with definite properties without a _mind_ in which those properties are grounded. He states this virtually _explicitly_ in the video (go watch it again, it's only 3 minutes). If he wants to just _believe_ that in order for reality to have properties it "just must have a mind!" that's great for him - let him believe whatever he wants! It doesn't constitute an _argument_ for a God.
2. If you want to appreciate cosmology and physics you need to grasp their methodology in a more fundamental way. Turek does not do this at all. Many theists do not. Science does not tell us that there was some kind of known "absolute" beginning, though theists frequently (for some reason) keep saying this is what science does tell us (when it explicitly does *not* tell us this). Go read the Wiki on the Big Bang Theory for yourself, and read the subsection on "Misconceptions" and the subsection on "Pre-Big Bang Cosmology." If scientists thought that "there was nothing before the Big Bang" or anything like that, then they couldn't very well write, theorize or study about something called "Pre-Big Bang Cosmology" could they?
No, indeed not. You hold a misconception of what science has discovered and teaches us. It does not say that the universe had a definite origin in the finite past, much less does it make any such statements about "reality" as a whole. All physicists have done is extrapolated backwards in time using the laws of General Relativity and concluded that the universe was in a super hot, super dense, super small-volume, low entropy expanding state, about 14 billion years ago. Beyond that far back in time, NO scientist has ANY business making assertions as to _facts_ about the universe, because none of them HAVE any such facts - we don't have a complete quantum physical theory, and we damn sure haven't unified General Relativity with Quantum Physics, and far more importantly, below the Planck Scale (about 10^-35 meters) we have NO PHYSICAL THEORY whatsoEVER! When the universe was that small (and smaller), we can make _no scientific statement at all_ because we have no KNOWLEDGE of physics at that level. Therefore, the idea that "the Big Bang says there was a beginning to the universe" is *utter nonsense* and propagated only either by people who don't really understand what they are talking about, OR, perhaps sometimes, they might be trying to talk to, say, children and teach or *introduce* them - in an _imperfect_ but _useful_ way - to the theory of the Big Bang. But to take that _oversimplified_ description of the Big Bang and make it into some kind of gospel which no physicist accepts is completely wrong.
The fact of the matter is that science does not KNOW anything useful about the ultimate origin of the universe or all of observable reality. But I will make one point to you:
Consider the 1st law of thermodynamics: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, though they make convert between the two states.
Well, if you take that Law seriously - and physicists DO take it very seriously - they apply it equally no matter what system or theory they are using (be it Newtonian physics, Relativity, OR quantum physical models) the implications of that Law are:
A. That the universe is *unambiguously* eternal in the past, because its matter and energy have ALWAYS existed (because they could never have been created or destroyed)
and
B. That the religious idea of Creation Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing) is contradictory to thermodynamics.
I often find that theists who make the kinds of arguments that Frank does rarely have considered these extremely simple and non-controversial scientific principles and implications. But that's not surprising - they're not _scientists_ or _scientific_ in their thinking or education. But that won't stop them from misrepresenting science.
3. I already addressed the question - in my original comment - about whether or not Logic can exist outside of minds. I can only reiterate it so many times before it becomes pointless for me to do so more.
The point is that God could not have invented the Laws of Logic, period, because that would imply that there are aspects to God which are not BOUND by the Laws of Logic...which is totally incoherent! You cannot _create_ or _invent_ the Laws of Logic - such "laws" if they exist in any way at all - CANNOT be contingent upon any being or thing, because they are _descriptions_ of the requisite PRE-necessities that much be in place for existence to even make SENSE at all in the first place. God did not exist BEFORE the Laws of Logic - that would be impossible. Neither could God have "created" the Laws of Logic because that would imply he could uncreate them, change them, manipulate them, that there were parts of himself outside or beyond Logic, which makes no sense! That would mean God could both exist and NOT exist at the same time, because there's no Law of Non-Contradiction, etc. No, indeed, the idea that God made Logic is no more coherent an idea than the idea that humans made Logic.
@@superdog797 1. From my understanding, Franks point is that If reality exists, the view that God exists can answer these philosophical questions which the atheistic view cannot.
2. Even if for the sake of your argument, science doesnt point to a beginning in time space and matter, the argument that a supernatural creator that created the universe is a much more plausible and logical argument to me than the universe and its laws just always existed. Ps I never said the universe started with the big bang according to science.
As for the point about thermodynamics. God can 100% create a universe out of nothing. He can physically create energy to begin with and set the laws thereafter. He could even be energy that he used from Himself. We dont know... We are just speculating here. There is literally nothing stopping Him from doing so, though. We obviously have no idea what or how such a powerfull and almighty creator could do it because our minds just arent capable to even understand it.
3. Logic and the laws of the universe could definitely be created by God. I would say that the best explanation for Gods nature, is logic. That doesnt mean logic existed before God. It just means they are both Truth...
Its definitely possible that God could be outside of Logic but decided to create it and abide by those laws. He could change those laws, but He decided not to when He said that He is the same yeaterday, today, and tomorrow. There are things that God cannot do and that would be illogical things such as creating a square circle, or doing sin. That would be contradictory and because again, Gods nature is that of logic...
🤯