วีดีโอ

I’m fine with rational skepticism. But the key word there is rational and that can be pretty tricky to identify. But I’m convinced that what Street Epistemologists and basic internet atheists have is irrational skepticism. But they, of course, don’t recognize it. They sow doubt with the intention of increasing their type of skepticism and in doing so just make the person they persuade dumber. And I do find that annoying.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter.

Yes. This is very true.

Do better next time.

Stop being weird.

@@mouhaahaahaa Incorrect.

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 what was it then

Dude. I even made a slide show…

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 LOL

Yeesh…

That is a common hypothesis. But that’s all it is.

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 We have no definitive evidence for a strict monotheism up until Akhenaten - and that's a maybe. Alongside of the historical sources of polytheistic belief we have, we haven't discovered anything like a monotheism in otherwise uncontacted tribes. I'm happy to be corrected, but this seems to be the default.

@@jesseparrish1993 This chapter is not arguing for an original monotheism in the strict sense. It can include attributes of henotheism as well. If there is some kind of supreme father deity from which everything else originates including other gods, then this position is still valid. Uncontacted tribes are not strong evidence in favor of any hypothesis regarding religious origination unless they have preserved ancient scriptures. Just because the sophistication of their tools have remained static, that doesn’t automatically mean that their religious beliefs have done the same. Additionally, even if their tools are primitive and have remained unchanged through the centuries, that doesn’t mean that those tools didn’t evolve out of some earlier more primitive tools. Same thing with religion. Uncontacted tribes religious beliefs could easily have devolved from some more primitive form of monotheism and there’s no way for us to know without documentation.

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 Two things: 1) The word you're looking for is monolatrism, maybe, but it also sounds like a belief in a chief God constitutes "monotheism" to you. Your use of "monotheism" is very peculiar to yourself. "From which everything emanates" does not translate to Pagan pantheons in the way that, say, a first cause argument would entail. Dualistic origins, or origins in a primordial chaos, are more typical. Or, as in the case of Sumerian religion, the primordial waters giving birth to the Earth and the Sky, followed by the creation of the rest of the pantheon, included Enki and Ninlil. It's also common for the creator(s) to be separate from the creations of mankind. 2) It is evidence. If we're positing the first kind of supernatural/theistic belief amongst humans - which would include prehistoric belief for civilizations going back to, say Karahan Tepe 12000 years ago - uncontacted peoples are our closest analogue to an experiment. Invariably we find beliefs that fall under paganism or animism. Doesn't matter if they can write. As to our first written records, those would be Egyptian or Sumerian, which are polytheistic. Our first visual records/artifacts, to the extent we can infer, feature a pantheons with representative of rain gods, fertility gods, and storm gods common to Paganism.

1) One may also include attributes of monolatrism as well. If a worldview has a god that is said to be the creator of everything else, then the belief that the world was primordially monotheistic is housed within that worldview. Now, whether or not that was an original feature of the worldview is another matter. 2) Ok. I remain unconvinced for the reasons I already described. I feel compelled to mention this, just in case it's necessary; this chapter is NOT claiming all extant religions are monotheistic at their core. With that being said, true, Egyptians were polytheistic. But Ptah is among the earliest gods mentioned in the records and he is described as the cosmic craftsman who brought the universe into existence through the power of his mind and words. Which I think is interesting. Btw, the primordial waters from which everything originates in the Sumerian religion is a god, even if she is likely an impersonal one (Nammu). So there was a time in which Nammu was the only god (sounds kinda monotheistic). Which is interesting. And even going back to Egypt. More chaotic waters from which everything else originates (Nun). So, again, at one time there was only one god. It's interesting that they're both formless and void and watery. But I think all religions are interesting in their own ways. Anyways, there's a lot more that could be said about all of this but I remain convinced that one is within their rational rights if they consider monotheism as humanity's original theism. It is, however, irrational to say that the Original Monotheism hypothesis is not a credible alternative to Original Animism or Paganism.

Yep. There are people that argue that the Theism described in the Old Testament is more of a Henotheism. Either that or a cross between Henotheism and Monotheism.

Get it straight. The Bible is truly of God and truly of man.

@@robertlight5227 “Love for”? More like “tolerance of” and/or “use of”.

Stop the brainwashing dude. You are a grown azz man​@@northeastchristianapologet1133

nope

So, do you think this concept is inconceivable?

I was using small “g” god in those illustrations. I’m saying that you’re the god of any world you conceive because anything about that world is the direct result of your will.

If by "even handed" you mean something like being fair and impartial, giving equal consideration to all sides of an issue or dispute, setting aside personal biases or preferences and making decisions based on facts and principles rather than favoritism or prejudice, then, considering the crimes committed, yes.

Can you provide the timestamp of where I say that WLC relies on the Big Bang in support for the first premise?

The common retort to this will be that God is eternal and always existed. So by asserting that, it basically does away with your argument, even though they would not grant that to a naturalistic explanation of the universe. Because of that, they would be special pleading the eternal quality onto a god, and is therefore a logical fallicy. It would be interesting thought bubble if there is someone out there who believes that God was not eternal and wanted to respond to your argument. An argument from the problem of evil using your same starting qualities that most Christians apply to their depiction of God never provides any reasonable response, and is a far tougher question to try and hurdle from a faith perspective. Anyway, hopefully you find someone who doesn't believe in an eternal God, because I would love to take a look at their logic...

@@101stub I believe in eternal GODS, so you can talk to me.

​@@thoughtform21okay. I really don't get anything out of comment section discussions, since there is massive lack of the significant amount of nuance that exists when speaking or writing in longer form formats. It is too limited for what I like. But if you want to have a short discussion, that is fine. I guess the first port of call is to ask what your belief system is? Is it something like Hinduism? Or is it a non-standard theistic belief system?

@@101stub You could call it Platonism. I've found both Greek and Heathen deities in my life. It's weird.

​@@thoughtform21Okay. Since it is non-standard, it gives me very little to really understand your position exactly. But my next question would be, how did your gods come into being? If they are eternal but were created, who created them? Who created that creator, then so on and so forth?

Thanks for the kind words. My point about "authors are the gods of their own worlds" was *not* that stories are complicated and are best explained by minds and since our world is complicated it's also best described by a mind. That was *not* what I was getting at. I was trying to show that godless worlds are inconceivable. Any world that you conceive of has a god and that god is you. Even if you think you have imagined a world that has no god, you are failing to take yourself into consideration. All you've done was slap a false label on that "godless world". The constituents and events of any world that you conceive of are the direct manifestation of your intellect. I also talked about supposed contradictions regard omnipotence in this video. The Problem Of Evil provides no justification for even doubting the existence of a god like the Christian God. th-cam.com/video/FZmT5oJ-h08/w-d-xo.html Anyway, thanks again for the comment.

@@northeastchristianapologet1133thx for responding. My final thoughts are just that the way ontological theists describe possible worlds rubs me wrong. ‘All the possible worlds you could imagine have a god’ feels like it makes your imagination physical. Like, I would say that Sherlock Holmes has hands. He has that attribute, but I don’t think that he exists or materially has hands. In the same way I don’t see how these descriptions of god cross from imaginary to material.

@@beckhamjenkins4798 It’s just an illustration of how God relates to the physical world. The material stuff around us seems very “real” to us because we are inhabitants of the physical world and God wants it to be real to us. But on Christian theism, the physical world is just a manifestation of God’s intellect. If I imagine a world like the Harry Potter universe then everything about that world will seem very “real” to Harry Potter. Unless it was my will for him to think otherwise. That Harry-Potter-universe is a manifestation of my intellect but how I relate to that world is just an illustration or approximation of how God relates to our world. Nothing is more “real” than God.

Thanks for describing the mainstream opinion of basic internet atheists everywhere. My point was that most street epistemologists just sew doubt without offering a viable replacement worldview. It's like tearing down the government without having any idea of what to replace it with. It's foolish and juvenile. I am not just sewing doubt on this channel, I am arguing for a bonafide viable worldview. You may think that Christianity is not a viable worldview, and that's your opinion. Good luck with that.

​@@northeastchristianapologet1133You seem to value logic and I think this is great. Me too, and I use as best as I am able. To me, adhering to it strongly seems to be the best course of action, especially when talking about extraordinary claims, as well as pointing out fallacies when they're committed. Would you agree?

@@UlyssesDrax Logic is helpful when it comes to belief formation, but is inadequate by itself. Experience, creativity, evidence and the acknowledgement of one’s own limitations are all just as important as logic.

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 Pause for a moment. I love having discussions to get to the truth of matters, and I think reasonable, clear, well-thought, respectful, and honest approaches are proper to have. Let's go back. I'm not certain if you read or understood my comment. It ended with a yes or no question, and you went in a direction I didn't initiate. Can you answer it first? You don't need to of course, but that would indicate to me that I'm not dealing with a person who wants to engage properly.

@@UlyssesDrax I believe I’ve addressed your question in my response. If you feel otherwise, I’m not sure this discussion will be productive or engaging for either of us. Unless there’s something new to discuss, I’ll leave it here. Have a great day, and God bless.

I disagree. But thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter.

Stop being weird.

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 I could ask you the same thing hypocrite. I'm not the one dedicating my life to a cult

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 I'm not the one spreading misinformation and horrible reasoning

Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter.

Big overlap with flat earth "theory" as well

Christian apologists are defending Christian doctrine. Scientologists think that alien beings are attached to everyone, and these aliens are the cause of all human unhappiness.

@@Capt.Pikles Thanks for offering your opinion on the matter, Pikles.

​@northeastchristianapologet1133 that's not an opinion It's demonstratible fact

@@TheinternetArchaeologist lol “demonstratible”

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 kid You Believe in a magical sky daddy You don't get to be smug about a typo 🤣🤣🤣

@@TheinternetArchaeologist Spare me your drivel.

1. Personally, I’m not convinced that there are any other inhabited planets, but it certainly within God’s power to create life on other planets. Jesus is God incarnate. So, yes, Jesus would also be the God of those on trillion inhabited planets. Whether or not Jesus took on some incarnate form and visited those other inhabited planets… I literally have no idea and I also don’t think it matters. 2. I don’t think God the Creator is “big”. He doesn’t have any volume or size. God is spirit. He is immaterial. He doesn’t take up space like stars and planets. God infuses creation similar to how you are aware of your whole body. Your awareness is not limited to just your head. You’re also aware of your feet and hands and all the rest. 3. Physical Time is simply not an issue for God. It’s not like God was sitting around watching the planets and stars to slowly form. He’s beyond all that. Just like how an author is beyond everything in story he’s writing. Your question is like saying, “Gandalf is about 55,000 years old by the time Frodo finds the ring of power. What was J R R Tolkien doing for 55,000 years??”

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 1. So how do other creatures on other planets know that Jesus is their Lord? So how many gods do you have? Is Jesus in the form of an alien also your God? Why did Jesus come to another planet, did he die on the cross to atone for his sins? Which one is God in heaven, Jesus who came to earth or Jesus who came to trillions of trillions of other planets?

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 2. Can you explain what the verses Jeremiah 23:24, Chronicle 6:18 mean? What kind of figure do you think could roll up the sky like a scroll as mentioned in Isaiah 34:4?

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 3. When God created the universe, did God use raw materials? If God did not use raw materials in creating the universe, then what was it that became the universe, was it God's Word that became the universe or what was it that became the universe?

@@masbro1368 //So how do other creatures on other planets know that Jesus is their Lord?// If they have intelligence like we have, then I wouldn't be surprised if they experienced events similar to the events we experienced when Jesus came on the scene. Where a member of their species lived a sinless life, was unfairly treated and killed and then conquered death. //So how many gods do you have?// Just one. //Is Jesus in the form of an alien also your God?// I think the second person of the trinity has the power to incarnate in any form He wants. About 2000 years ago He incarnated as a human and was named Jesus. //Why did Jesus come to another planet// I don't know if He did or didn't. //did he die on the cross to atone for his sins?// He would probably die for any morally significant creature that was made in His image. Again, we have literally no evidence that there are other life-forms on other planets. None of this is important. //Which one is God in heaven, Jesus who came to earth or Jesus who came to trillions of trillions of other planets?// This might help you understand the trinity better: th-cam.com/video/-WQmpZCQ7oM/w-d-xo.html

You need to stop and actually read/listen to and then understand what is being talked about here.

I had nonchristians in mind when I chose the image.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." St John Henry Newman

That's why I do it. Thank you for the kind comment.

th-cam.com/video/SvaZOEb9aCM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=HRwAUZiL71khVsBU

@northeastchristianapologet1133 do you have empirical evidence of anything supernatural?..even a small tiny example? You don't right? So how do leap from not having any actual evidence of even a small supernatural thing to the MOST suoernatural thing ever conceptualized conceived by humans? 😂 Therefore, until you can empirically demonstrate the supernatural, your silly arguments against naturalism are null and void.

@northeastchristianapologet1133 the ole "look at how much we don't know about our reality, therefore Jesus" argument! 😂😂 Uh, yeah we don't know everything about our reality, that INCLUDES the existence of a god(s)! We DONT know if such being(s) exist and since we have no proper evidence, we SHOULDN'T assert it!

1. You really ought to try to understand the videos you're commenting on/about *before* you write your comments. 2. This is about worldview comparison. Basic internet atheists always demand evidences, but there are no evidences that are more compatible with Naturalism than theistic worldviews. So, there's no reason to prefer Naturalism on that account. 3. Empirical evidences are fundamentally naturalistic by their nature. It's idiotic to try to use our natural senses to detect supernatural entities. Nevertheless, natural circumstances and situations can make it reasonable to infer a supernatural cause. Especially, when naturalistic explanations are inappropriate. This is my last response unless something interesting pops up. God bless you and have nice a day.

@northeastchristianapologet1133 I watched the video and understand the crux of the argument. My friend, "we don't know everything about our reality" also includes whether there's a god. The reason there no evidence of anything supernatural could be that there's no such thing AND until we have such evidence, you are NOT justified in believing it exists. The video presents arguments that are really stupid. Arguments that Hitchens and others obliterated more than 20 years ago. Why don't you start with how you would respond to Hitchens counter to this argument? Wouldn't that advance the conversation? You guys totally ignore the counter and just revert to your original argument even though it's been answered by very prominent atheists!

Because you want it to be full of fallacies.

​@@northeastchristianapologet1133 Personal preference wont change it. Also even if you want it not to be it wont change.

@@hiderchrishopYou underestimate the power of the human psyche to prove its biases. Since you’re not aware of it, you are more susceptible. Anyway, have a nice day.

Christian Apologetics: Chapter 04, DISTORTIONS Of The Christian Worldview th-cam.com/video/rr-bP8uDa6w/w-d-xo.html The Reason For God: Chapter 6, Science Has Disproved Christianity th-cam.com/users/livebMxntUoEF1o?feature=share

Links to watch videos you think contain evidence of a god are not evidence of any god. What supposed evidence of a god is supposedly in either of those videos?

It’d be silly to use my reasoning for rejecting Holy Koolaid’s argument with a god that someone just made up. Whether you like it or not, the Christian God is well-established while the Spaghetti Monster is literally intended to be a joke. Anyway, I’m still of the opinion that Holy Koolaid’s argument is much too weak to justify rejecting Christianity. I think he’s insane for doing so. Have a nice day.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter.

People are much too confident in our knowledge of the ancient past, but your example is bad simply because the oldest known Chinese writing goes back to 1600 BC while the Tower of Babel event is traditionally believed to occur around 2242 BC. You should’ve used the Sumerian and Egyptian languages to make your point. Our knowledge of the languages in the Americas at around 2200 BC are only educated guesses. The amount of faith you’ve demonstrated in this comment would be much better placed in Jesus Christ. God bless and have a nice day. 😊

@@northeastchristianapologet1133 What is your one best piece of evidence for Jesus?

th-cam.com/play/PL6XKQSBuFlQ0C6opw3tx7BYb6TIg4Xylr.html&si=P8dvqmt0ECVRPMAc

Totally agree. Genius answer. But we wouldn’t expect anything less from the Lord.

Yes. People are often stunned to learn that we ought to love God more than anything else and more than everything else. But we will never be free until we take on that constraint.