Elizabeth, I loved the dialogue you had with Alex at the end, I think that left him with something to think about. Drawing attention to the deep mysteries of God in contemplation, being face to face with the One who is closer to us than we are to ourselves, refuting that we're all obsessed about heaven and hell as if we aren't experiencing either of those things right now. You stood on what actually makes a difference between modern cultural religion and a deep intimate experience with Christ. You and Rowan were shining light on that stage, addressing the issues, but never taking the focus away from the One who has changed you.
Really interesting conversations. Although it wasn't a typical episode, i would have still appreciated your usual recap and your post interview thoughts!
"Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid". You have to be in a loving relationship for those words to have meaning. So the starting point must be an open heart ( which I think Elizabeth clearly demonstrated) rather than only a mind that seeks explanations.
I enjoyed it. Jack Symes symbolically regulates his Elizabeth-Rowan right brain and his Alex-Goff left brain in the most masterly duty as a corpus callosum. Iain McGilchrist would be proud. Both sides were brilliant and great to watch.
Elizabeth was the star of this conversation, for me. After all these years the arguments grow tired, the logic and mental twisting becomes a chore. Eventually, if you’ve gotten some small taste of the Divine, you just want to abide in that, and hear from people who want to abide in that as well.
Elizabeth was basically 0% evidence, 100% feelings. When people think about god their brains give them dopamine (happy chemicals which people attribute to the holy spirit even though it can be easily explained by neuroscience). The happy chemicals are real even though the supernatural is not. But that's why religion FEELS true to people, because they feel their brain's releasing of chemicals.
Our shared "i" Am Beautiful Elizabeth thank you for attending and having sincere conversations with thy Hosts Meeks in front! Love you too without shame but with boldness! Thank you
Better than average discussion on this subject, as everyone was open and listening to the each other. I have to say though that only one thing anyone said actually hit home, it was Elizabeth's explanation of 'Why Christianity?' and she mentioned 'that old hymn'...'see from His head, His hands, His feet, Sorrow and love flow mingled down', and that its because the person of Jesus embodies this tragically beautiful spiritual vision that she is a Christian. At the end of the day if nothing in any religion moves you, then it's probably not worth pursuing any of these discussions, but if it does then struggling with it from all angles will probably bring you to a better place.
I could make poetry about a car, it would do nothing to explain or understand its design or function and would be completely misplaced in a discussion about its design and function...
As a fairly 'right-brained' person, I really like the way Elizabeth comes across in discussions like this (and some of her one-to-one interviews, too). She's often choking back emotion, as if she's on the verge of tears, and can barely maintain her composure in the face of God's love and mercy. I can get behind that. I wouldn't say that 'intellectual Christianity' is worthless, nor that Christian philosophy is unnecessary, but that all those things sort of dissolve in the emotional release of an encounter with the living God. It's ok to cry at the feet of Jesus. It's ok for faith to be tangible in that way. Very few evangelists, apologists, or 'public Christian intellectuals' (for want of a better term) allow themselves to do that. I love Glen Scrivener and Justin Brierley, too, but they never seem to convey quite the same emotional range, depth, or rawness. Maybe it's a gender thing: perhaps it's easier for a woman to cry at the beautiful sorrow of our crucified God without losing credibility, whereas a man dare not go there for fear of exposing their vulnerability? I don't know, but I do know that for me, Elizabeth's emotional rawness makes it more real, more credible, not less. (I don't know if she reads these comments in person, or whether a comms officer runs this youtube account, but if you do see this, Liz, I just want to say thank you for having the honesty to put your emotional self on the line in these discussions, rather than just keeping it all in the cold, abstract world of the intellect.)
31:55 - curious to hear why you don't consider yourself to be a theist, but you are a Christian. That has to mean that you don't consider Jesus to be divine, which almost all Christians would disagree with..
I thought they all sounded rather humble. That’s also why I prefer Alex he’s got great perspective and always has hard hitting questions or quotes that reach so many because he does the work to know quite a bit of history and philosophy.
@@TheMagev If you are not "humble" when you are trying to justify a rather silly delusion, you just sound insane. I'm not even sure that humility is capable of avoiding that hurdle.
@ that’s kinda my point, given their position it’s nice that they come off humble to the best of their ability. With Alex he’s humble because he honestly doesn’t know “the answer” and it comes off even more natural from him. That’s why he’s just so much more compelling to me.
My main issue with Christianity as it is with all religions is the certainty with which the claims are made to explain things and the lack of humility that they might be wrong. As Oliver Cromwell once said “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”. When pressed on a topic the Christian side came up with word salads littered with anecdotal and emotive reasoning with the occasion reverse engineered theory. Why is it so hard for a Christian to say “I don’t know, I might be wrong and this might just be hope dressed up a reason”?
Your wellbeing is devoted to its creator and it can recognise its creator. The creator is devoted to your wellbeing and loves your wellbeing. Trying to control, manipulate or keep the created is a futile exercise resulting in a tragedy.
I just came here after seeing the debate from the venue, and I must say this is a very strange page. ,Lots of comments about emoting and wish thinking here. No principle, just a vague, but emotive, assertion of faith. i think this explains, at least in part, why so much of the ladies speakers comments seem to be fighting inexplicable tears. Obviously this isnt the place for me, but I thought id share my observations. From my point of view this page seems to either not read the texts, let alone properly look into the obvious errors - to say nothing of the immorality of them, but colours everything they read to ensure it redowns to the feeling of a warm hug.
"I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me." Christopher Hitchens,
The world is currently suffering from war, rape, starvation, natural disasters, viruses and genetic diseases. Bad things happen to good people every day, and 95% of species are extinct. If this is "wellbeing" what do you think a world WITHOUT god might look like?
“What we pay attention to and how we pay attention changes what we see.” For me this was the key insight (via John Vervaeke) that enabled me to start taking religion seriously.
Remembering who said, if ye Love me! Attend unto my sheep! Some will say, HE is a roaring LION. Yet, offsprings preserve came running towards HIM! Students shared "i" Am will say, Ye may know the Tree by its fruits! Including the ROARING LION!
Fine tuning must be possible because we exist. It may also exist elsewhere I the universe. It's remarkable, of course, but possible. Admire, accept and move on.
Why is suffering seen as a problem? Accepting it as part and parcel of existence is a first step towards peace of mind. Enduring it is about growing. That too brings peace. Discuss! 😊😊
My shared "i" Am beautiful Elizabeth at least I can do is to washed thy Feet to be given new Feet and wiping thy sincere tears from thy eyes! Unfamiliar ways of speaking my shared "i" Am beautiful Elizabeth!
Remember: God could be disproved tomorrow and atheism has not prevailed. There are a plethora of other extant gods to choose from. The competent atheist debater knows how to show the improbability of _gods._
How do you contrast between the hiddenness of God (the concept of an eternal primordial intelligence that existed without causation) vs the hiddenness of atheistic concepts like abiogenesis (where life is some kind of pantheistic property of the universe itself, and intelligence springs from "nothing")? Without direct empiricism, how is abiogenesis not also a "story" invented from observations by the human mind? What allows hypotheses to transcend from narrative to reality in an atheistic worldview?
The atheist should only consider the evidence presented for a god, and whether that evidence has moved the probability from zero or not. It's not really on them to put forward the probability up front.
@@xensonar9652 Can you explain your understanding of what separates theism and atheism? These words represent rather large categories of ideas. My understanding of theism is that at the core of existence is an "intelligence", where many different caricatures exist in human philosophies, stories and religion. Atheism is at its core is a philosophy that intelligence does not have to exist a-priori, buttressed by evolution. It's an ontological distinction between philosophy whether "intelligence" can come from "non-intelligence", similar to the ontological question can "something" come from "nothing"? Do you have a different perception of what separates theism and atheism?
Never the twain shall meet. Existentialism about the ethical human subject on the left and rationalism about the ordered physical realm on the right. They both need to ground their respective insights in the human body's sensitive engagement with its environment. The former forget that this is objective, predictable and mathematical. The latter forget this this subjective, personal, ethical experience roots science.
I came to this video to see what the contrast would be in the comments from Alex's upload. I'm genuinely perplexed by the response here, nothing of value was shared and damn near everything this woman said contradicted itself. Even Hijab managed a better perfomance against Alex
Dumb question. Does the world exist? The real question is the knowable nature of the source, which our limited minds by definition will never fully grasp. Modern people can’t handle not fully knowing
God is everywhere, everything i see its His reminder !! An average body made up of 100 trillion cells and each cell contains equal amount of atoms. Imagine the complexity in simplicity!!! The more i learn the more i find God almighty in the world around me. Believing Him is the most amazing thing in my life. I am so blessed He chose me to be a muslim❤ O God keep me steadfast on path you showed us through your last and final prophet and messenger Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him(صل اللہ علیہ وآلہ واصحابہ وبارک وسلم تسلیما کثیرا کثیرا ❤️💗❣️)
Atheism and Agnosticism base good and evil on relative morality. The world would descend into chaos if everyone based good and evil on relative morality because the standard would be themselves. There would be no justice if the standard were only oneself. Religion teaches that the standard of good and evil is based on law. In the eyes of the law, both the poor and the rich are judged equally; if they break the law, they are punished by the law, and that is justice. The standard is the law.
We have no way to investigate this thing people call God, so we have no justification for believing one exists. What exactly are you referring to when you use the word God?
I’ll never understand why atheists think it would “be nice to believe in God” since I’ve come to belief my life has become much more difficult, struggling against sin and temptations of the world really isn’t a vacation lol I mean I guess in western Protestant Christianity it seems “nice” where all you really have to do is utter the words I believe in Jesus and you’re all set, but in Orthodoxy it’s a battle against your passions daily.
Hi Elizabeth. Can you name 100,000's, 20, 10, 5 or even 1 of God's documented post Scripture visible miracles? Hint on one of the standout miracles God has performed post Scripture. Within ten years of God performing this visible miracle around 9 million Aztecs converted to Christ. Do you think it means that God did not perform this miracle when its the Catholic Church the Aztecs converted to after Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531)?
I’ll post the statement I submitted to the official video that ended up getting the 2nd top comment - “I like poetry, don’t get me wrong, but this lady really made emotional poet her entire personality… The problem is she comes across disingenuous, has an entirely orchestrated speech, mostly comprised of other people’s poetry, all but ignoring the moderators questions, then for the duration of the interview constantly snivels and feigns wiping tears from her eyes I can’t stand grandstanding”
What about truth? No matter how uncomfortable truth is? Believers arguing from feelings and emotion while appealing to scientific evidence, such a strange mix. Man made god and not the other way around.
You need Muslims represented in these discussions, Islamic theology has deep answers to all these questions, especially the question of evil and suffering. You are missing a trick
These debates are ridiculous. Arguing that God exists is such a meaningless venture. If God indeed does exists you won't be arguing his existence. He will be doing that himself.
It seems none of them know what God is. And yet somehow there's good reason to accept it because someone feels its a good thing? Not sure it makes sense. And I disagree with Alex...I don't really hope the Christian god exists. He seems terrible all around. A character who makes conscious things with the hope that some portion of them will exist in misery for forever doesn't seem like there is any good. Christianity usually brings me profound sadness and depression when people speak as if we ought to accept it. All good can be had, moreso than anything imagined by Christianity without that terrible set of ideas.
Oh no.... Sorry, but I also have to say that this Philip chap just said, "Sin does not play such a big role in Orthodox Christianity"! Now that shows ignorance of bone-shatteringly profound magnitude! Why do people feel the need to talk about the one subject they know the least?
No true Christian believes in "the theory of evolution through natural selection", what on Earth are you on about?... The chap on the right is simply unable to talk about God without setting up nonsensical strawman fallacies in place of the perfect and indestructible eternal Truth which is Christ. To any Child of God - a chosen Christian in contact every day with his Lord (the actual Creator) - there are only two types of men: the Christian who will go to the new eternal Kingdom of heaven (and then the New Earth), and those who reject Him - will reject Him - prefer this material world and human evil - who go to hell.
The universe can't be fine tuned for life. You'd only need to tune it to produce two earths instead of one and it would already be twice as habitable for life.
My understanding of the fine tuning argument is that cosmological models with altered physical constants give rise to nothing but primordial soups of dispersed energy or black hole singularities. Maybe that's only with the example of the gravitational constant. Either way I don't think you can just posit a universe that duplicates our solar system at multiple points in space. You have to demonstrate that adjusting the physical constants produces a cosmological model where that's the case to defeat the argument.
@@Eilfylijokul That would mean the creator is adjusting the tuning within imposed limitations outside of its control. A god that is the origin of the physical constants can determine the range of what is stable.
@@xensonar9652 the argument is based on the standard model of particles physics. You can hypothesise that there could be some different kinds of particle interactions if you wish. That's my favourite part of the fine tuning argument though. It's a theistic argument based on a scientific discovery that atheists have the hand-wave away by making unfalsifiable propositions about the nature of reality. Putting the shoe on the other foot as it were.
@@xensonar9652 it's an argument based on the data we can get out of the standard model of particle physics. If you want to hypothesise other ways of particle formation and interaction that could give rise to liveable universes you can. That's the best part about the five tuning argument. It's a scientific theistic argument that atheists have to try and hand-wave away with unfalsifiable hypotheses. Putting the shoe on the other foot as it were.
Elizabeth, I loved the dialogue you had with Alex at the end, I think that left him with something to think about.
Drawing attention to the deep mysteries of God in contemplation, being face to face with the One who is closer to us than we are to ourselves, refuting that we're all obsessed about heaven and hell as if we aren't experiencing either of those things right now. You stood on what actually makes a difference between modern cultural religion and a deep intimate experience with Christ.
You and Rowan were shining light on that stage, addressing the issues, but never taking the focus away from the One who has changed you.
Knowing our wellbeing is alive, changes everything.
That was a really wonderful interchange - so much openness and passion amongst all the speakers. I found it very refreshing and hopeful.
Really interesting conversations. Although it wasn't a typical episode, i would have still appreciated your usual recap and your post interview thoughts!
We might just do that! Thanks for the comment 😊
"Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid". You have to be in a loving relationship for those words to have meaning. So the starting point must be an open heart ( which I think Elizabeth clearly demonstrated) rather than only a mind that seeks explanations.
I enjoyed it. Jack Symes symbolically regulates his Elizabeth-Rowan right brain and his Alex-Goff left brain in the most masterly duty as a corpus callosum. Iain McGilchrist would be proud. Both sides were brilliant and great to watch.
Elizabeth was the star of this conversation, for me. After all these years the arguments grow tired, the logic and mental twisting becomes a chore. Eventually, if you’ve gotten some small taste of the Divine, you just want to abide in that, and hear from people who want to abide in that as well.
@@Diary_of_Devotion thank you 🙏
Of all the places the divine would reside, the last place we think of looking into is our wellbeing.
Elizabeth was basically 0% evidence, 100% feelings. When people think about god their brains give them dopamine (happy chemicals which people attribute to the holy spirit even though it can be easily explained by neuroscience). The happy chemicals are real even though the supernatural is not. But that's why religion FEELS true to people, because they feel their brain's releasing of chemicals.
Our shared "i" Am Beautiful Elizabeth thank you for attending and having sincere conversations with thy Hosts Meeks in front! Love you too without shame but with boldness! Thank you
Collective narcissism.
Loved this convo, and the last 2 mins was absolutely beautiful, "He is my beloved & I His"🩷
This was a brilliant debate and conversation.
Gratitude and Honor!
Love the quote she says around 33:28 about "suffering is somehow helping us grow up assholes". Lovely...
Gratitude and Honor
Liken unto having sincere conversations with my "YOUTH"!
Better than average discussion on this subject, as everyone was open and listening to the each other. I have to say though that only one thing anyone said actually hit home, it was Elizabeth's explanation of 'Why Christianity?' and she mentioned 'that old hymn'...'see from His head, His hands, His feet, Sorrow and love flow mingled down', and that its because the person of Jesus embodies this tragically beautiful spiritual vision that she is a Christian. At the end of the day if nothing in any religion moves you, then it's probably not worth pursuing any of these discussions, but if it does then struggling with it from all angles will probably bring you to a better place.
I could make poetry about a car, it would do nothing to explain or understand its design or function and would be completely misplaced in a discussion about its design and function...
Fascinating debate thanks for sharing.
As a fairly 'right-brained' person, I really like the way Elizabeth comes across in discussions like this (and some of her one-to-one interviews, too). She's often choking back emotion, as if she's on the verge of tears, and can barely maintain her composure in the face of God's love and mercy. I can get behind that. I wouldn't say that 'intellectual Christianity' is worthless, nor that Christian philosophy is unnecessary, but that all those things sort of dissolve in the emotional release of an encounter with the living God. It's ok to cry at the feet of Jesus. It's ok for faith to be tangible in that way. Very few evangelists, apologists, or 'public Christian intellectuals' (for want of a better term) allow themselves to do that. I love Glen Scrivener and Justin Brierley, too, but they never seem to convey quite the same emotional range, depth, or rawness. Maybe it's a gender thing: perhaps it's easier for a woman to cry at the beautiful sorrow of our crucified God without losing credibility, whereas a man dare not go there for fear of exposing their vulnerability? I don't know, but I do know that for me, Elizabeth's emotional rawness makes it more real, more credible, not less.
(I don't know if she reads these comments in person, or whether a comms officer runs this youtube account, but if you do see this, Liz, I just want to say thank you for having the honesty to put your emotional self on the line in these discussions, rather than just keeping it all in the cold, abstract world of the intellect.)
We will happily sacrifice all our elation and all our disappointment, to be in the presence of our wellbeing.
@@eliasblum753 mostly a comms officer, but we’ll be sure to pass it on! Thanks for sharing 😊
Likewise as HE is gentle Likewise be gentle unto the comforter dwelling within thee in front of Thy LORD!
31:55 - curious to hear why you don't consider yourself to be a theist, but you are a Christian. That has to mean that you don't consider Jesus to be divine, which almost all Christians would disagree with..
Youth shared "i" Am Shalom, Hallelujah, and Amen come forth!
I did enjoy Alex O'Connor and his superb rational mind.
Everyone else sounded a bit like confused children.
I thought they all sounded rather humble.
That’s also why I prefer Alex he’s got great perspective and always has hard hitting questions or quotes that reach so many because he does the work to know quite a bit of history and philosophy.
@@TheMagev If you are not "humble" when you are trying to justify a rather silly delusion, you just sound insane.
I'm not even sure that humility is capable of avoiding that hurdle.
@ that’s kinda my point, given their position it’s nice that they come off humble to the best of their ability.
With Alex he’s humble because he honestly doesn’t know “the answer” and it comes off even more natural from him.
That’s why he’s just so much more compelling to me.
My main issue with Christianity as it is with all religions is the certainty with which the claims are made to explain things and the lack of humility that they might be wrong. As Oliver Cromwell once said “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”. When pressed on a topic the Christian side came up with word salads littered with anecdotal and emotive reasoning with the occasion reverse engineered theory. Why is it so hard for a Christian to say “I don’t know, I might be wrong and this might just be hope dressed up a reason”?
Your wellbeing is devoted to its creator and it can recognise its creator. The creator is devoted to your wellbeing and loves your wellbeing. Trying to control, manipulate or keep the created is a futile exercise resulting in a tragedy.
Agony looking at so DELIGHTFUL!
Times indeed came with increased in knowledge!
I just came here after seeing the debate from the venue, and I must say this is a very strange page. ,Lots of comments about emoting and wish thinking here. No principle, just a vague, but emotive, assertion of faith. i think this explains, at least in part, why so much of the ladies speakers comments seem to be fighting inexplicable tears.
Obviously this isnt the place for me, but I thought id share my observations. From my point of view this page seems to either not read the texts, let alone properly look into the obvious errors - to say nothing of the immorality of them, but colours everything they read to ensure it redowns to the feeling of a warm hug.
"I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me."
Christopher Hitchens,
Yes, the comforter dwelling within thee having sincere conversations just for thee?
Title should be "Does Abrahimic God exists with its value-system?".
Since no other major religion participated.
Ended in a bullseye :)
Being showered with riches nor wealth to investigate Thee our LORD!
Jesus spoke of the afterlife, Elizabeth. It was arguably what he most emphasised to his disciples.
Jesus didn’t say anything
Hosts Meeks will say, LORD don't mind who have mock thee!
As HE admired to desired my shared "i" Am beautiful Elizabeth!
God is devoted to the wellbeing.
The world is currently suffering from war, rape, starvation, natural disasters, viruses and genetic diseases. Bad things happen to good people every day, and 95% of species are extinct. If this is "wellbeing" what do you think a world WITHOUT god might look like?
“What we pay attention to and how we pay attention changes what we see.” For me this was the key insight (via John Vervaeke) that enabled me to start taking religion seriously.
As HE came for Elizabeth likewise unto the woman!
For many have NOT KNOWN HIM? Yet ye know HIM!
Remembering who said, if ye Love me! Attend unto my sheep! Some will say, HE is a roaring LION. Yet, offsprings preserve came running towards HIM! Students shared "i" Am will say, Ye may know the Tree by its fruits! Including the ROARING LION!
G-d isn't a thing, only things exist. G-d is existence itself.
Existence is existence
Fine tuning must be possible because we exist. It may also exist elsewhere I the universe. It's remarkable, of course, but possible. Admire, accept and move on.
Why is suffering seen as a problem? Accepting it as part and parcel of existence is a first step towards peace of mind. Enduring it is about growing. That too brings peace. Discuss! 😊😊
@rogernichols1124 Yes, a class, existent is a member of the class. A cat is a member of the species, it isn't the species itself.
@rogernichols1124 Struggle is inevitable. Suffering is how you handle struggle. Suffering is up to you
Professors, wise, and Scribes my shared "i" Am professors, wise, and Scribes!
My shared "i" Am beautiful Elizabeth at least I can do is to washed thy Feet to be given new Feet and wiping thy sincere tears from thy eyes! Unfamiliar ways of speaking my shared "i" Am beautiful Elizabeth!
And just that fast the casted atheists are reaching back to ancient alternatives to classical theism. New Atheism had a terribly short shelf life.
Resting upon Thy SON sitteth upon HIS KINGDOM Noone can pluck away!
Remember: God could be disproved tomorrow and atheism has not prevailed. There are a plethora of other extant gods to choose from. The competent atheist debater knows how to show the improbability of _gods._
How do you contrast between the hiddenness of God (the concept of an eternal primordial intelligence that existed without causation) vs the hiddenness of atheistic concepts like abiogenesis (where life is some kind of pantheistic property of the universe itself, and intelligence springs from "nothing")? Without direct empiricism, how is abiogenesis not also a "story" invented from observations by the human mind? What allows hypotheses to transcend from narrative to reality in an atheistic worldview?
The atheist should only consider the evidence presented for a god, and whether that evidence has moved the probability from zero or not. It's not really on them to put forward the probability up front.
@@xensonar9652 That's an interesting perspective coming from someone standing on top a mountain of trillions of autonomous robots.
@@johndill6594 I don't know what you mean.
@@xensonar9652 Can you explain your understanding of what separates theism and atheism? These words represent rather large categories of ideas.
My understanding of theism is that at the core of existence is an "intelligence", where many different caricatures exist in human philosophies, stories and religion. Atheism is at its core is a philosophy that intelligence does not have to exist a-priori, buttressed by evolution.
It's an ontological distinction between philosophy whether "intelligence" can come from "non-intelligence", similar to the ontological question can "something" come from "nothing"?
Do you have a different perception of what separates theism and atheism?
Yes, bring all governments nor nations to rest upon my shoulders!
Creation will say, will come back right here!
Time for good and evil increased in knowledge in front!
As ye all shared Can't touch the roof of the sky above?
Students will say, documents sent forth concerning!,
Indeed
Never the twain shall meet. Existentialism about the ethical human subject on the left and rationalism about the ordered physical realm on the right. They both need to ground their respective insights in the human body's sensitive engagement with its environment. The former forget that this is objective, predictable and mathematical. The latter forget this this subjective, personal, ethical experience roots science.
Hosts Meeks will say, LORD what is a SUIT?
I came to this video to see what the contrast would be in the comments from Alex's upload. I'm genuinely perplexed by the response here, nothing of value was shared and damn near everything this woman said contradicted itself. Even Hijab managed a better perfomance against Alex
Dumb question. Does the world exist? The real question is the knowable nature of the source, which our limited minds by definition will never fully grasp. Modern people can’t handle not fully knowing
Now the woman sitteth upon all my waters looking at my shared "i" Am beautiful Elizabeth!
God is everywhere, everything i see its His reminder !!
An average body made up of 100 trillion cells and each cell contains equal amount of atoms.
Imagine the complexity in simplicity!!!
The more i learn the more i find God almighty in the world around me.
Believing Him is the most amazing thing in my life.
I am so blessed He chose me to be a muslim❤
O God keep me steadfast on path you showed us through your last and final prophet and messenger Hazrat Muhammad peace be upon him(صل اللہ علیہ وآلہ واصحابہ وبارک وسلم تسلیما کثیرا کثیرا ❤️💗❣️)
Some will say, who's that? Talking! Some will say, HE is hovering upon the face of the waters!
What is who am I? Therefore, ye will not recognized in front of thee!
Alex will say, here's another story!
As much as I tried to understand Oldfield ,my conclusion was she talking religious clap-trap .
Read Iain Mc Gilchrist's books to understand how the way you look at things changes what you find.
try Iain McGilchrist and John Vervaeke on alternative understandings, 'right brain' and 4E cognition
Being showered with riches nor wealth will say, HE can't even afford a "SUIT" to look like US!
The Sea of Glass
Atheism and Agnosticism base good and evil on relative morality. The world would descend into chaos if everyone based good and evil on relative morality because the standard would be themselves. There would be no justice if the standard were only oneself.
Religion teaches that the standard of good and evil is based on law. In the eyes of the law, both the poor and the rich are judged equally; if they break the law, they are punished by the law, and that is justice.
The standard is the law.
Resting upon the clouds.
Research ""God’s Miracle of the Brick evidence to defend the Trinity: St Spyridon at the Council of Nicea 325 A.D"
We have no way to investigate this thing people call God, so we have no justification for believing one exists.
What exactly are you referring to when you use the word God?
I’ll never understand why atheists think it would “be nice to believe in God” since I’ve come to belief my life has become much more difficult, struggling against sin and temptations of the world really isn’t a vacation lol I mean I guess in western Protestant Christianity it seems “nice” where all you really have to do is utter the words I believe in Jesus and you’re all set, but in Orthodoxy it’s a battle against your passions daily.
Yet, ye will know thy Lord shared "i" Am Hosts Meeks in front of thee!
Intelligence will say, became authors and written books in front of our LORD!
Concerning WHO?
Shared "i" Am will say, universe do ye exist in front? Lord nought! Why? Lord thy shared "i" Am shared thy mouth uttered= universe
Endless utterances
Some will say, to mock! What you have been smoking? Smoking many who am I alive yet dead in front days and nights! All day and everyday!
Come outside and look above! Who among able to reach the roof of HIS HEAD?
The poor rich young ruler governments nor nations resting upon HIS SHOULDER!,
Relgion. Control of the masses.
Hi Elizabeth. Can you name 100,000's, 20, 10, 5 or even 1 of God's documented post Scripture visible miracles? Hint on one of the standout miracles God has performed post Scripture. Within ten years of God performing this visible miracle around 9 million Aztecs converted to Christ. Do you think it means that God did not perform this miracle when its the Catholic Church the Aztecs converted to after Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531)?
I'm sure you're well meaning, but you came across as unconcerned with facticity or actual claims. Everything seemed to be about vibes and poetry.
@@Lankbouv the length of a piece of string is a fact. Shakespeare is poetry. I know which one is more meaningful to me.
@@Eilfylijokulgood point
Life is an experience
Completely disagree. Elizabeth was the only reason I kept watching.
I’ll post the statement I submitted to the official video that ended up getting the 2nd top comment -
“I like poetry, don’t get me wrong, but this lady really made emotional poet her entire personality…
The problem is she comes across disingenuous, has an entirely orchestrated speech, mostly comprised of other people’s poetry, all but ignoring the moderators questions, then for the duration of the interview constantly snivels and feigns wiping tears from her eyes
I can’t stand grandstanding”
What about truth? No matter how uncomfortable truth is?
Believers arguing from feelings and emotion while appealing to scientific evidence, such a strange mix.
Man made god and not the other way around.
But who holding a basket! This poor WOMAN came offered given all she HAVE a "BREAD" in my BASKET!
For knows as ye know HIM?
Unlike Thy GARMENT?
Yet, ye Know HIM? For many have NOT KNOWN HIM?
You need Muslims represented in these discussions, Islamic theology has deep answers to all these questions, especially the question of evil and suffering. You are missing a trick
These debates are ridiculous. Arguing that God exists is such a meaningless venture. If God indeed does exists you won't be arguing his existence. He will be doing that himself.
It seems none of them know what God is. And yet somehow there's good reason to accept it because someone feels its a good thing? Not sure it makes sense. And I disagree with Alex...I don't really hope the Christian god exists. He seems terrible all around. A character who makes conscious things with the hope that some portion of them will exist in misery for forever doesn't seem like there is any good. Christianity usually brings me profound sadness and depression when people speak as if we ought to accept it. All good can be had, moreso than anything imagined by Christianity without that terrible set of ideas.
Oh no.... Sorry, but I also have to say that this Philip chap just said, "Sin does not play such a big role in Orthodox Christianity"! Now that shows ignorance of bone-shatteringly profound magnitude! Why do people feel the need to talk about the one subject they know the least?
Set underfoot!
Now, Elizabeth will say, what ye all have offered?
This was Click bait: There where no Atheist 😮😅😂❤
No true Christian believes in "the theory of evolution through natural selection", what on Earth are you on about?... The chap on the right is simply unable to talk about God without setting up nonsensical strawman fallacies in place of the perfect and indestructible eternal Truth which is Christ.
To any Child of God - a chosen Christian in contact every day with his Lord (the actual Creator) - there are only two types of men: the Christian who will go to the new eternal Kingdom of heaven (and then the New Earth), and those who reject Him - will reject Him - prefer this material world and human evil - who go to hell.
Too much theatre from the woman, not enough substance.
This Philip Goff dude takes the biscuit - spouting incessant lies about Christianity and thinking he's onto something. Dreadfully sad to watch.
The universe can't be fine tuned for life. You'd only need to tune it to produce two earths instead of one and it would already be twice as habitable for life.
My understanding of the fine tuning argument is that cosmological models with altered physical constants give rise to nothing but primordial soups of dispersed energy or black hole singularities. Maybe that's only with the example of the gravitational constant.
Either way I don't think you can just posit a universe that duplicates our solar system at multiple points in space. You have to demonstrate that adjusting the physical constants produces a cosmological model where that's the case to defeat the argument.
@@Eilfylijokul That would mean the creator is adjusting the tuning within imposed limitations outside of its control. A god that is the origin of the physical constants can determine the range of what is stable.
@@xensonar9652 the argument is based on the standard model of particles physics. You can hypothesise that there could be some different kinds of particle interactions if you wish.
That's my favourite part of the fine tuning argument though. It's a theistic argument based on a scientific discovery that atheists have the hand-wave away by making unfalsifiable propositions about the nature of reality. Putting the shoe on the other foot as it were.
@@xensonar9652 it's an argument based on the data we can get out of the standard model of particle physics. If you want to hypothesise other ways of particle formation and interaction that could give rise to liveable universes you can.
That's the best part about the five tuning argument. It's a scientific theistic argument that atheists have to try and hand-wave away with unfalsifiable hypotheses. Putting the shoe on the other foot as it were.
@@Eilfylijokul I'm not hypothesising theoretical physics. I'm hypothesising a being that can create universes. Read my comment again.
Alex trying to control Noone can contain!