วีดีโอ

If They don’t believe the Bible is true they definitely don’t believe in blasphemy. So your blasphemy argument is ludicrous. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is classic circular reasoning. People respond better to reasoning not preaching.

So if believing every word in the bible defines "true Christianity", then do you actually believe that every bit of rain that falls, does so because God tells it to (Job 37:6-7)? Or do you think that natural processes cause rain to fall. Do you actually believe that we don't know where wind comes from and where it goes (John 3:8)? Or do you think we now know because we understand how natural processes give rise to wind? ^^ Or does "believe every word" have lots of different meanings, in part because you are not a first century Jew, but rather you are a twenty first century American?

From a fundamentalist Christian perspective, I'd have thought that "good" is doing the things (you believe) God requires of you. Thus if God wants you to love your neighbour, then loving your neighbour is "good". If God wants you to wipe out all the men, women, and children in another country, except for the virgin women, then doing so is "good". ^^ If I am correct then it's not at all clear that the faith is necessarily a force for good. It can be, but it can also be very destructive. History shows this to be so. Current events show it to be so. While humans may really be helped when other humans do the will of God, so humans often suffer when other humans do the will of God.

//... they blaspheme God ...// Deep, deep down, Sye knows that he is wrong but is too prideful to admit to it, and thus he is without excuse. ^^ If Sye thinks Romans 1:18-20 is such a good answer to friends who want evidence for Christianity, then consider that the above is a good response to Sye's assertion. Imagine suggesting to your friend that he/she is not at all honest and actually knows that Sye is correct in his claim? Why not just be brave enough or have enough knowledge to provide the friend with what you consider the evidence to be and either discuss it with the friend, or allow the friend to go away and think about it? ^^ If you are not brave enough, or lack the knowledge then naturally you will try to bluff your way out of your friend's question by either telling your friend, or suggesting to your friend that God is being blasphemed because the friend knows that you are correct - your God does exist. Presuppositional apologetics. Ugh. Think about it. If the apologetic is so darn good, then why not use it in all situations in your daily life when disputes occur?

He creates light, then the light bearers? I suppose that's one of getting around that particular objection. 🤔 Just make up your own physics. 🫣

1. Are things "good" because God *declares* that they are good? (ie - subjective Divine Command Theory) or 2. Does God declare them to be "good" BECAUSE they are good that they are good? (ie - morality is *external* to God) This is the dilemma as applied to Christianity, and BOTH options are unattractive to the Christian. You haven't offered a genuine solution - you've simply taken the first horn and tried to soften it by appealing to God's "nature" (which simply raises exactly the same dilemma), and saying this "nature" somehow IS "goodness" by fiat of stipulative definition. So, whatever God says or does is "good" as it's a consequent of his "Nature". There's no stance-independent objectivity here. You have a subjective, anti-realist moral system. And even worse, you don't even know what your "standard" of morality is, unless you think you KNOW the mind of God? If you're "just following orders", then you are NOT a moral agent, especially when you don't even know what those "orders" are (other than ancient stories about a dictatorial, vengeful and jealous God in the OT! :) You seem to have just traded in any notion of moral responsibility, and under such a system you are either amoral (at best), or immoral (at worst). Congratulations.

All you have done is communicate the facts of your world view. You have done nothing to demonstrate that any of those facts correlate to any facts outside your subjective experience.

There is so much to unpack here, but I’ll start with a few. First off, this was in Plato’s dialogue which was written 400 years (give or take) before Jesus even existed and 700 years (again, give or take) before the trinity was officially established. Neither Euthyphro nor Socrates nor Plato had a concept of a “Triune God”. Second, the dilemma specifically addresses “piety”, not “goodness”. These are similar, but are not completely synonymous. Lastly, even within an internal critique of the Biblical framework, there are very, very few examples of objective truths. I’d challenge you to name more than 5 examples of acts that are objectively wrong, across all times and circumstances, according to the Bible. Again, these need to be actual ACTS, apart from the internal/subjective reason they were enacted.

When I posted a video of yours with Sye, I took some flak from a sanctimonious Christian who should know logic: He compared Sye with a recently disgraced pastor. Sye is not a pastor. Also, this guy did not want to know the other side of the story. How do you respond to charges that he should not be teaching because of past incidents?

Three questions:- 1. So what exactly do you fellows mean by "justify" (or "account for") when you assert things like:- "... the validity of your cognitive faculties, which is one which the unbeliever cannot justify without God."? 2. And is there any chance at all, that you could be wrong when you make such assertions? 3. If, as presuppers, you remain fallible humans, then can I, as a fallible human operate by my own presuppostions and use them as a basis for arguing against your claims about God?

Good is everything that promotes the development and well-being of living things that are not harmful, without taking away their dignity. "Good" is not the quality of an item on a list of divine origin. Because "good" must be of that condition for those who follow the supposed good action. The problem with Christian moral commands is that they are not all good for those who apply them. For example, the command "You must worship God above all things" is not something good for those who practice it. It is something unnecessary that God wants, but not something good for the Christian believer.

If God blasted the legs off a lizard to make snakes how come we still have lizards ? or was i just one talking lizard ? Then how come we have multiple snakes ? Just be one snake ? or a complete lizard to snake alchemy ?

Its a lie from the devil kinda like Gnosticism

Something becomes evident when it presents very few doubts about its meaning and nature. It becomes obvious and easily believable. Evidence is the type of resource that transforms the doubtful nature of something into a highly probable certainty. However, strictly speaking, the evidence of something is merely a matter of probabilities. In light of the evidence, what is questioned ceases to be so because it turns out to be less improbable than other interpretations. But there is not a single Christian dogma that is the most probable interpretation of reality in light of the evidence, competing with other possible interpretations that explain reality.

God's opinion like women not to elders in the church or pay your taxes. That's metaphysics cuz it's pretty unexplainable the benefits are crazy and cross over different aspects of your life. Never let a woman rule over you.

Read the book of Enoch to take a look at christian metaphysics or revelation. 0 is more than 1. I'm nothing I put others before me even when I choose myself I would rather choose them. I give my heart when I can't physically give. Those who would want to serve shall be leaders.

Metaphysics is always a hypothetical consideration. You cannot base reality on metaphysics. You must base metaphysics on reality. Reality confirms the valid hypothesis.

//"Repent and believe the Gospel"// But whose Gospel??? Given the infighting that has been there since the beginning of the faith, it's more than just Acts 16:31 or Mark 1:15.

0:40 "Because God is not a thief." 1:00 "Adultery is wrong because God is perfectly faithful." Thus, child-killing is not wrong because God was a child killer in the 10th plague of the Exodus when he flew over Egypt and killed every firstborn son of each Egyptian family.

The bible jsutifies slavery. And just saying, the bible is pro choice. It specifically has instructions for priest how to abort a pregnancy in case the baby was a bastard.

You in turn also need to account for gods morality and logic. You can only do this by declaring gods morality and gods logic as a brute fact of his nature. This can equally apply to us. Morality and logic are brute facts of our nature. No god required. I'd be interested to see you prove otherwise?

The “move” of appealing to God’s Nature is ineffectual as a resolution, because it simply raises exactly the same problem. That is, is a moral law “good” BECAUSE (God’s Nature makes) God command it? Or does (God’s Nature make) God command the moral law BECAUSE it is “good”? The *origins* of the dilemma are found in Plato’s “Euthyphro” (a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro), but the *principle* is applied to *ANY* moral authority that issues or commands moral obligations. Saying it's just about Plato's time and the Greek pantheon and isn't relevant to Christianity is a BIG misunderstanding, as it relates to ANY institution claiming 'moral authority'. As it's a very well-known philosophical issue, it'd be worth having a better grasp of these things so you can accurately represent the problem.

As james Anderson says, worldviews are like cerebellums, everyone has one but not everyone knows what they are! Can't wait for yoir explanation of a worldview, Joel! 😊

So yeah, if you define murder as the _wrongful_ taking of a human life, then _by definition_ murder is always wrong, but all that does is kick the can down the road. How is it that you guys always think these tautologies solve your problem? They don't. "Wrongful acts are wrong" doesn't tell me anything useful. You've simply moved the issue to the word "wrongful." So what makes the taking of a life "wrongful?" And is _that_ criteria objective? How so?

"Morality is rooted in God. He acts perfectly consistently with his nature and [with] the ultimate standard of what is right." This is just the same answer as, "Something is good because God says so," just re-worded. Because we can imagine God having different moral standards, and then those standards would then apply. In fact, we don't need to imagine. In Numbers 15, a guy is stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Why doesn't that moral standard apply anymore? Well, because God changed his modal standards. So, something is good because God says it is, and it changes as God's moral standards change. It's not even consistent within the Trinity. In John 8, Jesus says, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her," with the understanding that she should not be stoned. God the Father has one set of moral standards, while God the Son has another set of moral standards.

name one PHD scientist who will say a fossil is 6000 years old. There are no examples of dead people coming back to life carbon dating is not the only radiometric dating you don’t have a basis for believing because you start from the believing perspective Sye has never made a point that is based on evidence, he just uses semantic tricks

Hey Doreen we are all over here listening to DR Mike and losing your sorry err I mean we are praying for you SISTER

There is no such thing as objective morality. Even if God were to exist, his morals would just be his subjective opinions. What would you do without God's moral standard? Do you not have any morality of your own? Is the threat of God's wrath the only thing stopping you from committing awful crimes?

Worlds shortest memory more like, like u forgot the 80% bad stuff in there

Thats not how ethics work.

Great video, as always. Keep up the good work, don't let the critics get you down

i believe in one less god than you do . i think there are 379 and counting so far .. . . .

I have seen satan/the devil without a mask (he is a shapeshifter) and the closest I can describe him is; He looks almost exactly like Gollum!

No because sauropods did not go into water and they did not have muscles in their stomachs.

God's nature is the standard of goodness. Fred's nature is the standard of goodness. Both can be true. God's nature can be your standard, and Fred's nature can be my standard. But of course this only goes to show that even the Christian "supposedly objective" moral framework is still very much subjective. You _claim_ that the Standard is "God's nature" but you don't seem to have any _direct_ experience with God's nature, so instead you rely on what the Bible tells you about God's nature as your standard. Of course the Bible just gives you a set of commandments, and leaves you to figure out the rest. (Seems like a grossly incomplete framework) So for the rest you simply rely on your moral intuition which, correct me if I'm mistaken, you believe is guided by God. I'm just curious how you differentiate your own moral preferences from those coming from God? And can you tell me what about a particular morally applicable action makes it moral or immoral? Is it the action itself? Some actions are good and others are bad? Is it the intent? So the action doesn't matter so much as whether or not you intended on doing good? Or is it the outcome? As in your intent and the action itself don't really matter so long as the outcome was good? Do tell how _do_ you make sense of it all?

C @TheThinkInstitute Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We'll have to agree to disagree about how many laws of logic there are. While there are many implications and entailments of the three, there remain just three, properly speaking. @Thomasw540 As long as you adhere to the shifting protocols of Post Modern Historic Deconstrction, the 3 Law of Logic are more or less sufficient. so long as you refuse to advance your epistemology beyond Descartes, Spinoza and Locke. However, if you are able to shift your perspctive from Post Modern Historic Deconscruction and the rejection of Hegel, whih necessarily rejects the epistemology of Jesus, and adopt Post Modern Literary Criticism taht was dominante in the liberal arts academe before 1968, and admance your modeling to Kurt Lewin's field theory, The 4th Law of Logic ibecome transparent. I recommend James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games. The 3 Laws of Logic define the boundaries of Finite Games, while Infinite Games describes the dynamical relationship between the 3 Laws of Logic and the 4th Law of Logic that reflects Napoleon's epistemological axiom of the Moral is to the Material as 3 is to 1. By and large, the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction dons at Yale opposed Carse on pretty much the same basis as your objection,

Apologists need to look up the word "assume" in a dictionary. Here are a couple of definitions: _suppose to be the case, without proof._ _To authenticate by means of belief; to surmise; to suppose to be true, especially without proof._ So, saying that a God is required to assume the intelligibility of language, the laws of logic, or the uniformity of nature, doesn't make any sense because making an assumption does not require any kind of support, _by definition._ I can assume that I am the most handsome man in the world, but I don't need to defend that in any way, because it's an assumption.

So people who have never heard of your god can't be moral? Nah! Stop being silly. Also, read the Old testament especially the parts where they talk about killing women, children and men, salting the Earth committing genocide basically. Don't forget about slavery. Morality yeah, Yahweh 😂.

No.

So if some kids take the micky out of someone with no hair and then an animal eats them, then we can say serves them right

Does stating something as a fact make that statement a fact?

Because it's evolutionary. Think about it..two tribes 100 miles apart. One has no societal injunctions against murder, rape, etc. The other tribe does have injunctions against them. Tribe A falls apart and disintegrates; Tribe B does not. Now, to help their "law enforcement" also says "The Great Lightning God endorses our injunctions". Then 1000s of years later, some theistic apologist claims "The surviving tribes have morality because God gave it to them."

ok, so lets start right away that you are factually wrong on evolution. it definitionally happens. alleles change frequency in populations over successive generations. you are different from your parents. that is evolution. even species that use parthenogenesis or mitosis have errors and mutations that introduce change. and evolution is ALSO the answer to why we have morality. and why OTHER species absolutely do have morality. a moral system creates cohesion, and it grows out of basic "don't kill our own kind and our kind will do better" impulse as well as more complicated empathy of "i don't like when somebody hits me and hitting others makes them feel that thing that i don't like so doing that to others would be bad" to the even more complicated social conditionals of "in order to STOP a person from beating another we may need to beat the beater a little bit and restrain them to stop the beating." that's where we start finding more and more codified contractual systems. some of which became absorbed into religions. the social behaviors have to be LEARNED from other members of the species. feral children exhibit none of the moral characters we expect from normal humans. apes use correction and reward toward their offspring to reinforce or deter behavior. moral systems are how societies fuse their members into larger groups than the normal 200 that humans would otherwise build. other apes such as chimpanzees seem to form groups of 50. ancient humans seemed to be naturally limited to 200 or so members before splintering occurred. but with each fission, the new group carried the moral systems of the old tribe. and as humans spread, they kept many of the same core values, but the new environments and situations placed different evolutionary stress on behaviors. certain behaviors that were ironclad before had to become more versatile. e.g. cannibalism isn't wrong. not by default. it can be engaged in safely and with respect to the dead with their consent.