Cliffe Knechtle and Mississippi State Free Thinkers Open Discussion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มี.ค. 2024
- Cliffe Knechtle visited Mississippi State and had an open discussion with the MSU Free Thinkers Club. The Speakers from left to right: Stuart Knechtle, Gabriel Chappell, Cliffe Knechtle, and Bob Swanson. Also this is a rough edit, as one of my cameras began overheating and I dealt with batteries dying. I tried doing too much. I didn't know how big this event would be, and I'd do a lot different if I could go back and record it again. But this is for educational purposes only, and I have no affiliation with, or bias towards, any speaker recorded in this video. Enjoy!
im here for Cliffe!!!!!
Same here.
@@jakeblitzcoffie4859 ✊
yo were u in the live chat this morning on cliffe's channel? i think i remember u bro
I see Stuart said he believed in evolution now I’m confused. Anyone pipe in here?
@@JH-ni9jwyea evolution as a process but not an origin bc there’s no creative mechanism in evolution
This guy in the red shirt is a comedian. I couldn't stop laughing at his intro and ending. He had nothing to offer lol. Cliff and Stuart's responses were excellent. Keep up the good work!
He sang a song for the last question instead of answering the question 🤦♂️
@@joshlittle5891 Thanks for watching the panel. This video might give you some insight about why I opted for a song to conclude the evening. th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=AuMaFcMM7STBUAOS&t=3870
@@mortgagehillmusings790 It's hard to take seriously a person who doesn't take his venue seriously and instead opens and closes with advertisements. I'm certain of that.
To my mind the atheist in the checkered shirt basically said nothing. Appealed to complexity a lot. Seems he hardly had an argument at all.
If you have any questions about what I said during the discussion I'm happy to elaborate.
I agree, it seemed to be a lot of appealing to “idk”
When it comes to the fullest extent of philosophical discussions, one has to be able to sufficiently address contentions which Cliff has been able to do
As someone who was an atheist of 23 years, that is the most compelling argument an atheist has in his tool box. The further we complicate the issue, the more difficult it is for the believer to show just how simple the answer really is. Just look at the historical evidence revealing that Jesus IS reliable, then go through the motions of believing in him, and his story. Once you become aware of all the corroborating historical texts from Josephus, Antiphus, Tacitus, Pontius Pilot, Pliny the Younger, etc... It's is nearly impossible to come to the conclusion that Jesus and his story is unreliable.
@@tonyha9180 I didn't appeal to idk I simply said that this issue is complex and that we should carefully consider other views from our own. I don't believe Cliffe has addressed the issues regarding Divine command theory as well as his misunderstanding regarding Meta Ethics. Cliffe also seems to not understand Existentialism and how Friedrich Nietzsche was an Existentialist, Cliffe seems to think that he isn't. Cliffe also seems to have no understanding of what Atheist actually believe and only addresses strawmen.
Stuart is legend status now.
Agreed. He should definitely publish a book
@mattdenise8867 First of all, thanks for watching the discussion panel. I don't know about "legend," but Stuart can certainly spin some surreal tales. If only he could distinguish fact from fantasy . . . . th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
Cliffe is - and Stuart is the new generation and ramping up! Both are amazing
Never seen two Christians utilize logic and reason so well to bring their beliefs to atheists. Very compelling. 👍
I'd be interested to know what you found most compelling.
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
Gotta love Cliffe
Thanks for sharing!
If you´re honest, you know that Cliff and Stuart won that discussion! For me the other two tried to make sense but if you think abou it, you couln´t find a single sense in their conversations!
Thank you for upload it on youtube!
I can elaborate on what I said if you have any questions or didn't understand. I was wearing the flannel.
Cliffe brought a shovel to a gunfight . . .
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
@@thepavlovguy7379bro what are you on about 😂. You don’t even understand what they said because they said a bunch of nonsense. Cliffe and Stewart clearly had more rational arguments. Don’t even get me started on the bob in the red shirt. He’s a clown and a comedian 😂😂
@@carsthatblessyourfeed I'm perplexed by your second sentence.
So if Cliffe and Stewart clearly had more rational arguments, surely you could tell me what arguments I didn't address.
Stuart and Cliffe had to stop walking around and stay in the ‘spirit of the discussion’ but that red shirt guy could bring a guitar to not even answer the question but sing a silly song? Doesn’t seem fair. Tbh he didn’t seem to take any of the questions seriously. For someone who kept bragging about being a ‘free thinker’ he didn’t have much to bring to the table for all his years of thinking.
@gracelight7 First of all, thanks for watching the discussion panel. There is a lot to take in, and I completely understand if it is difficult for the outside observer to catch, in the moment, all the motivations of the panel speakers. Perhaps his summary will give you insight about why I responded the way I did to the various prompts. th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
Worse yet was the debate that wasn't supposed to occur but was allowed to occur by the atheist. It's tragic the younger atheist was more thoughtful and mature than the older but I suspect that's what occurs to most atheists the longer they persist in their unbelief.
Omg the guitar solo at the end 😂😂😂😂 and I have to say I’m praying for all 4 of them
Dude said no debate, these are grown men and women if no one can handle a simple debate like a grown man or woman then they can get escorted out. People need to know how to directly answer questions and communicate
The purpose of not debating is that debates tend to devolve into strategies aimed at winning the debate rather than getting at the truth or evidence. E.g. a person is more inclined to spend time casting doubt about an opponent or an opponent's position rather than promoting and explaining their own position.
It's not about being a grown man or woman, it's about exploring the topic. Your argument itself is such an example of what's wrong with debates in that you resorted to insinuating anyone not willing or preferring debate is not a grown man or woman. It's literally a logical fallacy.
Don’t clap!!!! What the heck. That’s weird. Nothing wrong with clapping. That’s a ridiculous rule for a discussion. How strange.
After the second question when bob was allowing cliffe to respond to his questions then at the end, bob asks about how the bible translation, and them not letting cliffe respond to that was not fair at all.
@joshlittle5891 First of all, thanks for watching the discussion. Cliffe does have an opportunity to respond -- in fact, he burns a couple of minutes during his Question #3 time trying to respond to my points from Question #2. As I mention in the commentary video, Cliffe just admitted, "I'm wrong," but now desperately scrambles to somehow still be right by bringing in a scriptural account about Judas Iscariot's death. Spoiler alert, his flailing attempt is a failure. th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
@@mortgagehillmusings790 wow if you can't see the connection he drew that two things can be true at the same time without being exclusive, I would suggest working on your critical thinking before offering "courses" on it lol. That's genuinely sad
@@AKARCHER Cliffe missed the point and apparently you have as well so I'll say it again. Offering two versions of a story (hanging and bowels spilling out) does not justify thinking that either one (or both at the same time as Cliffe tries to twist his mind into believing) are actually true.
To believe either one without evidence is rationally unjustified. What convinces you that Judas Iscariot died in either of these manners? What convinces you that he died in the first place? What convinces you that he existed at all? (Caveat -- remember that the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.)
Apply the same logical standards to the POW story, and it gets even worse for Cliffe. How could we together figure out how the POW died? How could we figure out whether he existed at all? How confident should we be?
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=fbiVgU1K3H-AJ7io&t=2572
@@mortgagehillmusings790 Bruh you're an actual clown and gave no real arguments.
@@mortgagehillmusings790 So your point is Cliffe was obliged to take as gospel what you asserted without reviewing the evidence himself to explore why there was a discrepancy? Please give us examples where you regularly take the assertion of an opponent/skeptic as gospel in the moment instead of taking time to explore it later.
The background noise is driving me insane.
Yeah there wasn’t really a good way of getting around it. I tried doing audio edits but it would make the speakers’ voices super tinny and unlistenable. And I didnt have an audio device to mic them all up
@@TWestCreative You had to work with what you had. Thanks for posting the video.
Monotone lifeless kid: "I've studied this topic for a long time..."
Cliffe: 😂
Same thought. Kid has studied it at best for 10 years as a teen/young adult with very little life experience to test his studies.
I said "I've studied this issue quite a bit" I said because I have studied this topic a bit more than most people, I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be one. If you have any questions about what I said during this disscution I can elaborate or answer any questions you have.
@@silverbackhayabusa I've studied it for less but have been debating and talking to people like Matt Slick and others for around 2-3 years now. Of course this isn't comparable to the others as they have definitely had more time. Though I do believe that my criticisms of strawmaning and the 4 different views of Moral Realism that I brought up were not addressed at all.
@@thepavlovguy7379 If one is speaking from a position of knowledge, they ought to compare themselves to others that come from a position of knowledge rather than Joe Average. That's just my opinion.
Anyone with a bit of life experience and critical thinking looks at your experience and thinks, "quite inexperienced." That's not a slight but just fact. Those who are engaged in such topics range in experience from brand new to having been engaged for several decades to include a person you were sitting next to.
Again, just a suggestion on putting your experience into perspective.
With regards to things you said not being responded to, that went for both sides. You get props for engaging maturely and seriously whereas your atheist cohort failed to.
Keep seeking the truth.
ETA: I suspect when you look back on that moment 10-20-30 years from now you'll giggle at the comment of "quite a bit."
@@silverbackhayabusa I understand I'm pretty inexperienced compared to the others sitting at the table regarding public speaking and these types of discussions and talks, howeverI have read contemporary literature on the subject from authors like Graham Oppy, Alex Malpass, Robert Audi, William L. Rowe, John M. Collins, Stephen Law, Ryo Chonabayashi, Kenny Pearce, and Alvin Plantinga and have talked to people like Matt Slick and others.
While I understand what you are saying I don't believe that I'm inexperienced on the topic only inexperienced in this type of setting.
PS: I might :)
Where can i find a better audio 😭
Love you cliffe and Stuart be bless always ✝️
When it gets down to morality, the moral standard cannot be left up to society to decide, morality at that point becomes subjective. Humanity has shown that it can't decide with any permanence what right and wrong is. There needs to be a standard model of morality for us to follow rather create.
@williammcdowell3718 First of all, thanks for watching the panel discussion. Like Cliffe and Stuart, you appear to make the assertion that there is a moral standard. However, as I tried to point out numerous times during the discussion panel, asserting something is easy -- providing evidence to back up the assertion is much more of a challenge. A challenge that Cliffe and Stuart simply weren't up to. th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
@@mortgagehillmusings790 Suppose they do not provide evidence that you would deem sufficient, would that then change the fact that morality under your paradigm is subjective?
@@mortgagehillmusings790 I appreciate your implication that without perfect evidence, there is no moral standard. Do you have perfect evidence to support that or do you simply rely on creating doubt to sell atheism? And no, I'm not going to indulge your videos. The venue is here. You can answer here. Just as you expected Stuart and Cliffe to provide evidence in that limited venue.
@@williammcdowell3718 I like how he responds only enough to direct people to his TH-cam channel rather engaging directly like he expected Cliffe and Stuart to. I think that's intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
@@silverbackhayabusaIt is evidence that his position cannot withstand criticism unless the venue is one in which we cannot speak or question. Given that comments could be deleted and the power resides with the channel owner.
Where do we find the follow-up Q&A they mentioned?
@spadawah Thanks for watching the discussion panel. As far as I know, there is no recording of a follow-up Q&A session (the Knechtles did attend a Chi Alpha worship service the following evening). That said, you might find this video to be of interest -- th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
Just started watching your other video, thank you! Pretty bold out the gate to say that the human eyeball is poorly wired. Due to a tiny blind spot where the retina and optic nerve meet? Which the brain is designed to fill in the missing data? The eye is amazing, as is the brain! I’ve been completely blind before due to perforated ulcers on my corneas. Thankfully my sight was recovered, but problems continue. Learned a lot about the eye and have an eye appointment in the morning. I’ll ask my eye doctor if she thinks the eye is poorly wired. Maybe I am the one who is wrong here. I’m also losing my hearing. As I lose more hearing, my tinnitus grows stranger and louder. My brain picks the wrong noise to fill in for things. My bedside fan’s white noise often sounds like some kind of ethereal harmonics! Though it’s all interesting, it doesn’t nearly satisfy any curiosity about the question, “Is the universe a byproduct of happenstance or intelligent design?” You might as well say, “We would get a lot more done with 4 independently controllable arms. Since we don’t have that, we should doubt that there is an intelligent designer.” Has any culture ever approached philosophy this way? This style of thinking is very different from the norm, I think.
It’s so ironic how you say Cliffe and Stuart avoid giving direct answers and give straw man arguments. That’s all you did the whole time. You said, “I don’t know” and did an elementary school experiment in front of 700 university scholars and then asked if you hurt their self esteem. All of this is a straw man argument and avoiding directly answering. On the second question, you didn’t answer what evidence you have for not believing in a god. Rather, you warned the audience, read Cliffe’s book to him, and directly questioned him, which you were in no position to do, but he was very gracious. And then your commentary said you weren’t there to argue or discuss with anyone, but you are the only person who did *exactly* that. It would be hard to watch the whole 1 hr+ video as you already have started so dishonestly. I’ll watch as I have time.
@@spadawah I'm really sorry to hear about your troubles with your eyes and your hearing. So glad you've been able to find treatment for these issues.
th-cam.com/video/IZeWPScnolo/w-d-xo.html
@@spadawah You seem to not understand where the burden of proof was placed in this discussion. You are correct that, on the second question, I didn't answer what evidence I have for not believing in a god. That's not my job or my problem.
Cliffe and Stuart are the ones taking up the position in favor of existence -- they are the ones who then shoulder the burden of proof. If this were a courtroom, with Cliffe and Stuart making the prosecution's case for the existence of a god, I would (as a juror) have no choice but to find the god not guilty of existing. Let me be very clear that I'm not saying the god is innocent of existing -- simply that, based on the evidence brought forth by the Knechtle's in favor of existence, a compelling case is not made.
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
Good try Mclovin lmao in all kidding. This was really interesting. Glad the Knethcle family were able to speak the truth to so many. Hope many listened
The FOOL has said in his heart there is no God 🎤
The idiot claims the heart says anything at all! The heart is a muscular pump that circulates the blood. Shows how reliable the ancient bible collection of myths, legends, lies, errors, absurdities, and contradictions is!
@@robertmitchell-tv5yfi agree, i believe in order to “believe” in God you have to have some type of wisdom or level of intelligence to understand the whole concept of God, maybe its a higher IQ or something because alot of these atheists learn off books that they believe in already and only look for holes or contradictions and it shows where there intelligence stands, meanwhile the whole thing about religion isnt even a science question but a philosophical question and i think thats what alot of atheists really struggle with without even knowing it, they think theists are just believing in something to just fill in the “gap” that we cant actually prove. but they dont realize that God makes more sense than no God because they are in denial
Checkered shirt guy just told us about himself😂 bro offered nothing. He just told us his labels.
Just lists of labels and loose definitions. He’s gotta be like 20 years old. It’s what his generation is taught. He gives the caveat that he knows that no one there knows about meta ethics (out of 700 people!) and that he understands some of it but it’s waaaaaaaay smart. The gall! 😂
If you have any questions about what I said during the discussion I'm happy to elaborate.
@@spadawah When talking about philosophy you have to first define your terms, so that you aren't talking past one another. There where quite a few people in the crowd who talked to me after about Meta Ethics and my views. While I've read papers on the subject, that does not make me an expert and I could be wrong about my current understanding and views. If you have any questions about what I said during the discussion I'm happy to elaborate.
Red shirt guy's confrontational question to Cliff was absolutely silly. He compared a story Cliff heard years ago, that Cliff wasnt apart of or related too, that he repeated off the cuff and forgot one thing, to the eyewitnesses account of Jesus, someone who they knew, watched predict his own crucifixion, and then watched him die and raise from the dead. You think that wouldn't be a little more memorable?
Its like how everyone says "I remember where I was when I heard about 9/11" OF COURSE they'd have a better memory than a one off story Cliff didnt live through or experience first hand.
@NotAwesomeGabe First of all, thanks for watching the panel discussion. You say my "confrontational question" was "silly." Would it become less "silly" to you if you found out that, not only was Cliffe not an eyewitness to the "River Kwai" account that he included in his book, but even the guy (Ernest Gordon) who wrote the original account and Cliffe points to as an "eyewitness" was not an eyewitness. Cliffe makes my point for me . . . th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
@@mortgagehillmusings790no one cares. And you def are fabricating things 😂
@@mortgagehillmusings790literally couldn’t debate any other question 😂
@@mortgagehillmusings790 What I find silly was your assertion that the Bible is unreliable due to age and translation. How much science should we dismiss due to age and it being originally written in other languages? I'm guessing your academics include absolutely no study of the interpretation of languages and specifically interpretation of the Bible from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. But hey, feel free to be certain that the Bible isn't trustworthy while insisting we not be certain without perfect evidence.
@@Skiipper1 Be careful -- that's a claim and you now shoulder the burden of proof. Please clarify what you think I am fabricating.
Best I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong), it was Cliffe and Stuart making things up -- I have the receipts . . .
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
"I have nothing to say, but check out this guitar solo yall 😳"
First of all, thanks for watching. I'm sorry you came away with the impression that I had nothing to say . . . .
If that is indeed the case, I'll take consolation in the old saying. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Time and time again in the discussion, Cliffe spoke and removed all doubt.
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
❤
Is this video going viral on Tiktok?
Is it? I haven’t seen anything about it on there, but that’d be cool!
@@TWestCreative I’m not sure no one showed any clips of cliff and the guy speaking. It’s just a room full and the caption says they were there for cliff. I seen a couple point of views
This guy science teacher??
(Teacher really )like this guy no wonder why people are all screwed up . This guy thinks it’s a joke.😢😮😂
Yeah the dude in the red shirt avoided the questions and instead attacked Cliff. What a joker 🃏 he is… 😂
AS much as I would love to listen to this, the sound is so irritation, I am gone. Sorry Cliffe, I will watch your campus videos.
All The guy in the red shirt did was ask leading questions. The typical atheist will just try and poke holes in what you believe. He doesnt even ask questions to learn about what cliffe actually believes. He just asks them to get the answers he wants and then responds. Just because the accounts werent the same doesnt mean the even didnt happen?
❤
@logurt459 First of all, thanks for watching the discussion panel. I'm actually very interested in what Cliffe believes, but I'm even more interested in the reliability of the methods Cliffe is using to arrive at his beliefs. How would it strike you to find out that, despite Cliffe's assertion that Ernest Gordon ("an incredible man of great integrity") was eyewitness to the event, Ernest Gordon was actually not eyewitness to the event? I'm not saying that the event didn't happen, but I would be rationally unjustified to say that it did. th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
@@mortgagehillmusings790you are a waste of time to be invited in panel discussions. Please don’t waste people’s time.
@@erenennio4549 Nobody is a waste of time. Bob was created in the image of God and has therefore immense value. I hope you repent for this insult.
@@TheLilRussia your out of context Bro
If logic is descriptive, doesnt that mean it can only exist in a mind? If that is true and you have said that logic preceded human minds, then whose mind did they exist in?
God’s
Lets define some terms first Logic: Resoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. and Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. So we can describe Logic as the way in which we come to think, understand, and form judgments about the world and reality. Now going by this definition and our current understanding of other animals, we can take a look at whales for instance. Whales are smart enough to reason and communicate with each other, they have also been around longer than us Homo sapiens. From this and many other examples we can see how Reasoning and Logic have been around longer than we have. Now if we want to talk about platonism and the platonic forms then that is something else that I can also talk about however it would not have to exist in the mind of God as there are Platonic Atheist as well. If you have any questions about what I said in the discussion I'm more than happy to elaborate.
@@thepavlovguy7379 Your response leaves me with a few questions, but let me start with this: In your definition of the term logic, you said that it follows certain “principles”.
1.) How would you define the term “principles”? - I would define principle as a “fundamental truth”, but curious to hear your definition.
2.) Do these principles precede logic?
3.) Do these principles require minds to exist too?
@@parkplaceproperties4818 I would define principles as rules or laws. Some of these principles would precede logic in a sense, two examples is the law of identity and law of non-contradiction. The reason this is the case is that logic is a descriptive language almost exactly like mathematics. Some of these principles do require minds as they require language like the law of excluded middle.
@@thepavlovguy7379 Is the law of excluded middle discovered or created?
Those microphones are a joke, the voice amplification is next to none!
It seems the recording was made from speakers that the microphones broadcast to and simultaneously picked up crown noise. It's tough but the host seems to understand the mistake made with the limited resources he had.
Looking to know how to pronounce cliffes last name....uh...(?)
You pronounce it /knekli/
@@onesimonly7423 thanks, possibly Dutch, huh?
connect-lee
@@kirklarson1316 I would've originally said German and I now thing it might come from German since there are a noun and a verb which start with knecht-
But since Dutch is a germanic language, it would not be surprising that it shares it too
What an annoying audio track!
God always wins 😉🙏💛
A "free thinker" is never satisfied!!!
@Marshill1715 First of all, thanks for watching the discussion panel. You may be right, but compelling evidence would be a good start . . . th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
57:37 "i'm not gonna talk about the historicity bc i'm not a history person, i'm talking about philosophy..."
*translation = i'm not a fact checker, i just like to ponder the possibilities and 'what ifs' instead of the truth*
I didn't want to talk about something that I'm not as well educated in, I also believe that the question of god is a philosophical one not a historical one. If you want to say that I'm not a fact checker then you don't know me. I'm not a pragmatic person I'm someone who wants to know the truth and why something is what it is, if you don't want to get to know me that's fine but don't claim something which you can't justify. Also it's insanely rude to believe that someone whom you disagree with doesn't want to know the truth.
@@thepavlovguy7379 you do not have the eyes to see or the ears to hear. the facts are in the book and in the archeological discoveries. you just have to let go of the doctrines and dogmas of men..evolution is false, start there. also, i do not disagree with you, the facts disagree with you.
Please some 160 iq gigachad save me from the interweb rabbit hole and tell me why the CD container fell off with only air in the cup during the cup experiment 😭
UPDATE: After thinking about it for more than two seconds, I think the reason the experiment doesn't work with just air in the glass has something to do with the fact that there would be no barrier to prevent the air from escaping when the glass is turned upside down-that is, the excess air that would be present in the glass above the water when upside down, which effectively creates a partial vacuum seal because of the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the glass (pretty sure this means the experiment would also fail if the glass was fully filled with water). I could be mistaken tho so please someone feel free to correct me if that’s the case 🙏
2:41 HIS LEG IS NOT THERE
A MIRACLE! 😅😅
Great job, Bob.
Bob got smoked😂😂😂😂
@@doopoofartwhen he toasted himself after his first answer 😂😂😂
lol does bro know they’re not turning up there for him right😂😂 it’s because of cliff😂
The checkered shirt guy makes no sense sucks at explaining what he believes I know cliffe wants to speak right to him but respects rules lol
If you have any questions about what I said during the discussion I'm happy to elaborate.
Guy in the red shirt is an absolute joke
At least the people sponsoring this video could have done a much better job with the sound. Terrible sound.
Put some respect on Stewarts name too
the audio guy behind this video needs to be fired
The two atheists offered nothing to this discussion, both failed or ignored or rather have no answer to what was being asked to them.
If you have any questions about what I said during the discussion I'm happy to elaborate. I was wearing the flannel.
@@thepavlovguy7379 yes Sir please answer everything that was asked in this video which u ignored.
@@erenennio4549 To restate the questions asked: 1. Is the universe a byproduct of happenstance or intelligent design. 2. What evidence has either convinced you or has yet to convince you that there is a god. 3. Is Faith a reliable method of discovering truth. 4. Are morals just a construction of individual or societal decisions and norms. My response to each is: 1. My answer to this question was quantum physics as I find this to be the most supported proposition I've seen; you can say this is happenstance. 2. For this I referenced one paper "The evil god challenge" by Stephen Law as evidence for my side, while I definitely could have gone into more detail I found it prudent that I should respond to what my interlocutors believed my position to be as what they thought was my position was not it. Here are a few papers that I believe support the idea that God does not exist "Can god be Free" by William L. Rowe, "Arguments for Atheism" by Graham Oppy, "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" by William L. Rowe, Alex Malpass's argument for the falsity of Christianity on his blog which is here useofreason.wordpress.com/, and "The best argument agist God" by Graham Oppy. Now these are specific ones where the existence of God is argued against and not a simple argument saying that there are no good arguments for the existence of God. 3. I addressed this specifically during the discussion when I outlined how I would fully agree with Cliffe on the definitions he laid out. 4. This is something where I brought up 4 different types of moral frameworks that ground morality objectively without God. Honestly, did you even watch the parts where I talked at all? The only one that I agree I could have addressed better was #2, which those papers and books are a good read if you want some others that specifically argue for the idea that the arguments for god's existence don't work then I can recommend those should you want them. If this doesn't address your comment then I don't know what I didn't touch on or what I missed as this is pretty vague. "everything that was asked in this video which u ignored."
@@erenennio4549 This is a very broad ask as I don’t know what you believe I didn’t address or ignored. If you could please ask or show me what I missed, I’ll be happy to answer or elaborate on it.
@@thepavlovguy7379 the first question, the second question and the third question
That atheist was a joke! I was hoping for some really good atheistic ideas to compare against Christianity and all that atheist did at the end there was promote his song. That's disgustingly sad! I am a Christian but if I was an atheist I would be insulted Beyond belief.
Did you watch the entire thing or did you just go to the end? Because I mention 4 different groundings for morality from an Atheist view, if you want some other ideas check out Alex Malpass, Michael Huemer, Graham Oppy, and William Rowe. I definitely recommend Rowe as his work is great and very thought-provoking. I was the Atheist in the flannel.
They really clapped for the checkered shirt😂 shows you how lost people are that people full heart trust in his words, but will not put an ounce of trust in God
I think rather that they were clapping that a large crowd of new people were being let in to hear. He also clapped and motioned toward the people coming in with his body language. Then the camera panned and showed the crowd.
The guy in the red not saying anything to really answer the questions and talk about something different I think he not as knowledgeable as he thinks lol
I have a son at Miss State, this video is very disturbing. Cliffe and Stuart were the only ones with any sense. We’re paying good money for these idiots to teach our kids???
Well, Proverbs 1:7 does say "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge". If you believe that, the more people (or societies) move away from and the less they fear God, the more knowledge and sense will be removed from them. And just to elaborate a bit more, the fear talked about here is not the fear which makes us afraid of God, but more of a healthy fear/reverence of Him.
I'm wondering what you find so disturbing. Would it surprise you to find that Stuart appears to have made up his story about the Harvard entrance exam? What kind of sense does that make?
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
bro the dude in the red shirt had the weakest arguments
The atheists made sure this was not a debate. Wish it was that would have been epic. I will pray for everyone thanks cliff
I was wearing the flannel, I'm also the president of FAAMSU. We did not choose the format for the discussion as that was up to the group who invited Cliffe. While I think that a debate would have been more interesting I believe that this was a more productive conversation about what each of us believe as well as a little debate in-between. If you have any questions about what I said I'm happy to elaborate.
My mama always said lies never end. Hence why atheist have to create all these terms and explanations to explain things when the truth is constantly revealed.
watch how the atheists sit there with their arms crossed the entire time. amazing how a thief never finds a cop, they are always running from them.
I’m think he had something wrong with the guy in the red shirt nobody paying any attention and he has no answer so find something dumb to waste time 😕
Bros go TH-cam - are you a good person by living waters
Omg that was the dumbest example with water not a good speech for the question asked
There was a very important point I was making with the water/cup demonstration (The Freppon Objection). Essentially I was advocating for critical thinking as the best way I've yet discovered for determining truth. A second viewing and some context may make my motives more clear.
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
I’ve never heard, seen, or met a humble atheist. I can’t take anyone seriously that isn’t humble or at a minimum is trying to be humble
To his credit, Cliffe does admit, "I'm wrong" (he has little choice in the moment), but I wouldn't call that humility or honesty -- merely reputation management. Watch how desperate he gets as he flails about to somehow walk that back.
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.html
@@mortgagehillmusings790 that tiny error is not tantamount the the better understanding of history. The professor is just nit picking as if the tiny details are the big picture. That’s such a fallacy of wit.
@@unpopularopinions9076 The problem is that Cliffe has a flawed method in arriving at his conclusions regarding what we can confidently assert as factually true. A flawed method that allows one to make a tiny error is also the same method that would allow Cliffe to make a large error.
I would encourage you to watch that section back. Cliffe gives the reasons (the why) for what gets him to his what (his claim that his version of the POW story is factually true). Here's his "reasoning," in his own words, "I'm about 90% convinced because the man who went through that experience became chaplain at Princeton University in New Jersey, is an incredible man of great integrity, and I accept eyewitness testimony as a legitimate form of knowledge." I thanked Cliffe for his candor.
I'll say it again -- the number doesn't matter to me. What matters to me are the reasons (the why) and the method (the how) he has used in determining that these are indeed good reasons. His response told me all I needed to know -- the way he determines that a story he has heard is factually true is if he thinks it is coming from an eyewitness and if this eyewitness has somehow demonstrated, through action or reputation, some critical threshold for integrity. Can you think of a situation when this approach might lead you to accepting something as true that might not be true in reality? I sure can.
Of course, I brought the receipts -- I knew that this was not eyewitness testimony. You may call that an ambush or a gotcha -- I see it as being prepared to contrast epistemologies (the reason I agreed to participate in the first place) . . . . Bottom line is that Cliffe is operating with a faulty epistemology.
@@unpopularopinions9076 The problem is not the size of the error, but rather that a flawed method has allowed one to arrive at that error. If you watch that section back, Cliffe gives the reasons (the why) for what gets him to his what (his claim that his version of the POW story is factually true). Here's his "reasoning," in his own words, "I'm about 90% convinced because the man who went through that experience became chaplain at Princeton University in New Jersey, is an incredible man of great integrity, and I accept eyewitness testimony as a legitimate form of knowledge." I thanked Cliffe for his candor.
I'll say it again -- the number (stated percentage of confidence -- 90% in this case) doesn't matter to me. What matters to me are the reasons (the why) and the method (the how) he has used in determining that these are indeed good reasons. His response told me all I needed to know -- the way he determines that a story he has heard is factually true is if he thinks it is coming from an eyewitness and if this eyewitness has somehow demonstrated, through action or reputation, some critical threshold for integrity. Can you think of a situation when this approach might lead you to accepting something as true that might not be true in reality? I sure can.
Of course, I brought the receipts -- I knew that this was not eyewitness testimony. You may call that an ambush or a gotcha -- I see it as being prepared to contrast epistemologies (the reason I agreed to participate in the first place) . . . . Bottom line is that Cliffe is operating with a faulty epistemology.
@@unpopularopinions9076 The problem is not the tiny error, but the faulty reasoning that Cliffe used to arrive at that error. Unless the erroneous epistemology is recognized and corrected, the same flawed reasoning will be used again and again to arrive at equally spurious conclusions, both large and small.
I want to know as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. I tried to get a gauge about how true Cliffe felt his story was. It didn't really matter what number he responded with (he said 90% convinced) -- my interest is why he arrives at that particular value and what could he learn or find out to make that answer change (up or down). If you watch that section back, Cliffe gives the reasons (the why) for what gets him to his what (his claim that his version of the POW story is factually true). Here's his "reasoning," in his own words, "I'm about 90% convinced because the man who went through that experience became chaplain at Princeton University in New Jersey, is an incredible man of great integrity, and I accept eyewitness testimony as a legitimate form of knowledge."
I'll say it again -- the number doesn't matter to me. What matters to me are the reasons (the why) and the method (the how) he has used in determining that these are indeed good reasons. His response told me all I needed to know -- the way he determines that a story he has heard is factually true is if he thinks it is coming from an eyewitness and if this eyewitness has somehow demonstrated, through action or reputation, some critical threshold for integrity. Can you think of a situation when this approach might lead you to accepting something as true that might not be true in reality? I sure can.
Of course, I brought the receipts -- I knew that this was not eyewitness testimony. You may call that an ambush or a gotcha -- I see it as being prepared to contrast epistemologies (the reason I agreed to participate in the first place) . . . . Bottom line is that Cliffe is operating with a faulty epistemology.
Checkers and red shirt guy said absolutely nothing. They had more fear of the people that showed up to listen to them then what they were saying
Actually, I came in prepared with a game plan. Pretty pleased with the result.
th-cam.com/video/SyFr1WC-ZHk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UBIG-5JWSjD3zuat&t=3871
If you didn't understand what I said I'm happy to elaborate. I'm not afraid of public speaking nor am I afraid of talking about my views. I was wearing the flannel.
On the atheist side it wasn’t much of a discussion
Went into this with an open mind, but Bob Swanson really comes across as dishonest in this... Gabriel Chappel is at least genuine about what he believes.
Saw this all over my tiltok.. thank you for uploading onto you tube... this was great!!!!