If you can please consider supporting the channel Paypal: www.paypal.me/TomJump Patreon: www.pateron.com/TJump Church of the BPW: churchofthebestpossibleworld.org Start your own church today!
Just so much Christian special pleading. Christians really do just ignore every other religion that spouts the exact same silly arguments. Gods are just a figment of human imagination.
53:50 "The cananites sacrificed their kids....What does that deserve?" Wait god sacrificed his kid? Maybe he meant we should worship the cananites. Either that or we should kill god. One or the other.
God is the ultimate... "With Great Power comes no responsibility." The Christian god is a constant buck passer blaming everybody but itself for all the harm it causes.
52:20 And he just makes it worse. God didn't give the chosen land to the Israelites earlier because the Canaanites were not evil enough yet, so it sent the Israelites into slavery for 400 years, allowed the Canaanites to become increasingly evil, and then sent the finally freed Israelites in to slaughter them. Wow, how moral, how ethical.
A better way to argue against Pascal's wager is to just say "If those are the only two choices, then Pascal's wager gives us 50/50 odds of escaping Hell. But when dealing with hypotheticals, there is an infinite set of possibilities. Given the infinite set of hypothetically possible worlds, Pascal's wager gives us a 1/infinity odds of escaping Hell - which is essentially zero.
Morality isn't a "force" "just like gravity" that "permeates the universe" - total horse dookie there. But rather 2 things can be true at the same time: Morality is both objective (derived from a reality of _shared_ experiences) and subjective (we make it up, for us). Really not that hard.
50:29 If you have more power than a bully, you should stop the bully, but just because you have more power, doesn't mean you should break all the bones in the bully's body. You should exercise restraint and only cause as much harm as necessary to stop the bully. This Christians appears to have missed Tom's point entirely. God is like a teacher who stopped an elementary school bully by killing him instead of giving a more reasonable punishment, and instead of teaching why bullying is wrong.
If you are all-powerful, then you can stop the bully WITHOUT causing ANY harm. And if I don't know how exactly, well, an all-knowing entity WOULD know a way.
@@octocycle True! And many Christian bullies these days are growing up to continue to be bullies even as adults because the adults in their lives failed to teach them better, and because might makes right to so many of them.
It's hard to defend a single belief, but I do like the format and the debate. Everyone should believe what they want, as long as it's not forced upon them or them forcing it on another (historically and even now it is not being abide).
In a perfect world everyone would believe whatever they are convinced of. Believing something because you want to believe it is called wishful thinking.
Thank you for the "NEW" video. Did anyone film or does anyone have copies of the slides used during the debate? And, can a member of the TJump staff superimpose them onto this video? Thanks'
If your power is equal to or less than a bully, then you will probably need to stop the bully by causing more harm to them than if you were far more powerful. It's really not that difficult of a principle to understand but goes right over the head of that guy.
51:40 "God had given then 400 years to amend their ways" I really hate this response, as it tells us nothing. How did God let them know they were doing the wrong thing? Did he send them prophets to tell them? Did he appear personally? And did he just do this once at the start of the 400 year period, or continuously throughout? We don't know, it doesn't say. It could be that they were just meant to come to the right conclusion on their own, and because they didn't ah well, all the babies must die. I really annoys me that theists can't see the issue with this, and think the claim that God gave them 400 years to change justifies what happened next.
The gentleman's free will argument is one I haven't heard before. If God has $1000 of free will, and he gives us $100 of that free will, then we have 10% free will and God has 90% free will. This has some very damning implications for the Christian worldview, I don't think he has thought through his analogy very much. I'm curious how he came to the 10% and 90% and how what freedoms are included in each slice of the pie.
51:00 There is nothing more funny then the Christians feeling obligated to defend the God's genicide, where historically it never took place, since all these stories were invented when Hebrew were captives in the Babilon.
Hi Tom. Could objective morality be grounded in the Free Energy Principle, (Predictive Processing, Hierarchical / Entropic Model of the brain, etc,) as proposed by Karl Friston? (congruent with Shannon entropy). I have a vague understanding of the math, but nothing close to what you understand.
46:51"moral truth.... is grounded in God's character". Someone please help me understand this. I've heard versions of this for years and never understood what it means. The other version I've heard the most is "God IS the standard of morality". How can an independent being/mind be a standard?
Oh, its a particularly insane apologetic, if its what I think it is. Because the Magic Potato is Transcendent, and provides the preconditions of intelligibility, logic itself would not be possible, without making use of the giant magical potato. The potato speaks to his special friends in ways they can be certain are true, and I just plain don't want to discuss that topic any further, and will react with hostility if you esquire, but basically since you're all standing on my magic potato, you have to pay me rent. Pay up. "God IS the standard of morality" is the logical equivalent of "The MAGIC POTATO is the standard of morality". Its a stupid incoherent claim.
why is there no proper open discussion in these debates like back and forth? introductions are so boring. open discussions are better. it just seems to me like this other guy is scared to debate lol.
Good job Tom. This was not a good move by this church. It would be in their best interests to not engage in this kind of debate, especially with a poor of a performance by their apologist.
Wait, the Bible doesn't make predictions about the natural world? Is the Christian sure about that? I'm quite certain the Bible mentions Jesus thought the world was supposed to end 2000 years ago, and Jesus was supposed to come back in the lifetimes of his 12 disciples. Those are both predictions about the natural world.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect😂🤣😂🤣😂 I’m just showing how easy it is to think up your own comment style and not copy someone else’s. Unfortunately that TROLL!!!!! 🤡 Lester the Jester and that otrondal guy will COPY! that as well. I’ll just keep pulling them up. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Hello you sausage, STILL! copying my style of comment Saddo. And STILL!!!!! Can’t give any evidences? EVIDENCE!!!!! for your hero imaginary friend. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 Give us all sensible people your EVIDENCE!!!! 1 2 3 GO!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
😂😂🤣😂🤣 I can’t believe you have come out with the ‘Look at the trees’ Fallacy. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣 That does not prove a ‘God’ did it. That silly argument has been debunked uncountable times. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
The problem is ancient because we are debating things that just arent debatable... Like whether or not reality is real lol😅. Theisrs are leaning haaaard into epistemic nihilism to shore up their superstitions
I'm by no means a scholar or an intellectual but I hate this making nice 'agree to disagree' tap dance about possible/probably the ultimate and most important question! Rick's beliefs are errational, dangerous and horrific and he and the creepy moderator know that there friend Tom is going to hell!!! This 'conversation' has no teeth, no merit thus no point (other than financial!!!)
Hi, mushroom, And STILL!!!!! stealing my comment style. A cribber, who admitted stealing my comment style. See you again soon to remind you AGAIN!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Lestertjester Hi mushroom, And STILL!!!!! Stealing my comment style. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 The tea Leaf continues, the copying continues, the not use of his brain to think of something else continues. See you soon, to remind you again. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Umm...Tom could have just said the consent to be created question "an all-powerful God could make every human created always love that they get to exist"--if a God exists isn't it Him who creates all our personalities, wants and desires??
@@calmingwavesjulian youre right. God created the conditions for everything and knew what the outcome of those conditions would be. If he couldnt have created them differently then he isnt god.
There is really only one question to answer. Does a god exist. If a god does not exist, but believers exist.. it is entirely possible to come up with all of these poetic license arguments of moral guidance, and how to treat others and pretend that a god has endorsed things. We are not arguing about what a god can do if it exists. We are arguing about does a god exist or not. These red herrings do not point to a god existing. They do not identify a god from a lineup of potential gods and they do not advance our knowledge of any such beings if they do exist. I think we need to start holding them to the one question and do any of their answers actually demonstrate a god exists vs just supporting the idea of a god existing.
@uninspired3583 I am pointing out morality is irrelevant. It does not demonstrate a god exists. It is yet one more thing the theist likes to assert. My point is, if it cannot conclusively demonstrate a god exists and validate anything about it, we are still focusing on the wrong questions.
@TaylorWalston agree it doesn't demonstrate a god exist, but it's literally the content of the debate, does theism or atheism a better model for objective morality
BEEP! TROLL! ALERT! BEEP! TROLL! ALERT! The self confessed TROLL! Veggie out the back, IS! back. Like ALL! TROLLS! can’t stop TROLLING! and LYING! Can’t even get the Buffer name right. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
Tom, I think you did an awesome job. Been watching your channel for years. Keep up the great work 👍
Looking forward to more of these face to face type debates, Tom...
Just so much Christian special pleading. Christians really do just ignore every other religion that spouts the exact same silly arguments. Gods are just a figment of human imagination.
53:50 "The cananites sacrificed their kids....What does that deserve?"
Wait god sacrificed his kid? Maybe he meant we should worship the cananites. Either that or we should kill god. One or the other.
Even if he gave better theological arguments , t jump covers it all. Jump destroyed this old man lol😂
God is the ultimate... "With Great Power comes no responsibility." The Christian god is a constant buck passer blaming everybody but itself for all the harm it causes.
52:20 And he just makes it worse. God didn't give the chosen land to the Israelites earlier because the Canaanites were not evil enough yet, so it sent the Israelites into slavery for 400 years, allowed the Canaanites to become increasingly evil, and then sent the finally freed Israelites in to slaughter them. Wow, how moral, how ethical.
A better way to argue against Pascal's wager is to just say "If those are the only two choices, then Pascal's wager gives us 50/50 odds of escaping Hell. But when dealing with hypotheticals, there is an infinite set of possibilities. Given the infinite set of hypothetically possible worlds, Pascal's wager gives us a 1/infinity odds of escaping Hell - which is essentially zero.
Or read another way, 1 : infinity of ending up in hell, also essentially zero!
Simply ask "which hell would I go to and why that one in particular?" and it goes downhill from there.
Morality isn't a "force" "just like gravity" that "permeates the universe" - total horse dookie there.
But rather 2 things can be true at the same time: Morality is both objective (derived from a reality of _shared_ experiences) and subjective (we make it up, for us).
Really not that hard.
50:29 If you have more power than a bully, you should stop the bully, but just because you have more power, doesn't mean you should break all the bones in the bully's body. You should exercise restraint and only cause as much harm as necessary to stop the bully. This Christians appears to have missed Tom's point entirely. God is like a teacher who stopped an elementary school bully by killing him instead of giving a more reasonable punishment, and instead of teaching why bullying is wrong.
If you are all-powerful, then you can stop the bully WITHOUT causing ANY harm. And if I don't know how exactly, well, an all-knowing entity WOULD know a way.
@@octocycle True! And many Christian bullies these days are growing up to continue to be bullies even as adults because the adults in their lives failed to teach them better, and because might makes right to so many of them.
Well done, Tom. This was great.
T Jump has legs CONFIRMED
NOOOOOOO!! I'm literally SHAKING right now
cgi
God: Source of all truth
God: Creates the source of all lies
God: "I'm perfect, btw"
The Christian's argument is so bad, oh my!
It's hard to defend a single belief, but I do like the format and the debate. Everyone should believe what they want, as long as it's not forced upon them or them forcing it on another (historically and even now it is not being abide).
In a perfect world everyone would believe whatever they are convinced of. Believing something because you want to believe it is called wishful thinking.
Will buy book
Thank you for the "NEW" video. Did anyone film or does anyone have copies of the slides used during the debate? And, can a member of the TJump staff superimpose them onto this video? Thanks'
i have the slides, not sure the best way to upload them
If your power is equal to or less than a bully, then you will probably need to stop the bully by causing more harm to them than if you were far more powerful. It's really not that difficult of a principle to understand but goes right over the head of that guy.
TJump calling his good friend immoral to his face! 🤣
@@northernbrother1258 that was immoral of Jump
I've never seen Tom being so polite, especially when the arguments are so crap.
I've never seen*
Maybe English not first language
America is all about the $
its tjumps grandpa
Listen to the introduction
51:40 "God had given then 400 years to amend their ways" I really hate this response, as it tells us nothing. How did God let them know they were doing the wrong thing? Did he send them prophets to tell them? Did he appear personally? And did he just do this once at the start of the 400 year period, or continuously throughout? We don't know, it doesn't say. It could be that they were just meant to come to the right conclusion on their own, and because they didn't ah well, all the babies must die. I really annoys me that theists can't see the issue with this, and think the claim that God gave them 400 years to change justifies what happened next.
The gentleman's free will argument is one I haven't heard before. If God has $1000 of free will, and he gives us $100 of that free will, then we have 10% free will and God has 90% free will. This has some very damning implications for the Christian worldview, I don't think he has thought through his analogy very much. I'm curious how he came to the 10% and 90% and how what freedoms are included in each slice of the pie.
51:00 There is nothing more funny then the Christians feeling obligated to defend the God's genicide, where historically it never took place, since all these stories were invented when Hebrew were captives in the Babilon.
starts at 7:00
Hi Tom. Could objective morality be grounded in the Free Energy Principle, (Predictive Processing, Hierarchical / Entropic Model of the brain, etc,) as proposed by Karl Friston? (congruent with Shannon entropy). I have a vague understanding of the math, but nothing close to what you understand.
@@gowletr non overlapping magisteria. Just wow
12:01 "My goal is to be a truth seeker," claimed any given religious person.
46:51"moral truth.... is grounded in God's character". Someone please help me understand this. I've heard versions of this for years and never understood what it means. The other version I've heard the most is "God IS the standard of morality". How can an independent being/mind be a standard?
Oh, its a particularly insane apologetic, if its what I think it is. Because the Magic Potato is Transcendent, and provides the preconditions of intelligibility, logic itself would not be possible, without making use of the giant magical potato.
The potato speaks to his special friends in ways they can be certain are true, and I just plain don't want to discuss that topic any further, and will react with hostility if you esquire, but basically since you're all standing on my magic potato, you have to pay me rent.
Pay up.
"God IS the standard of morality" is the logical equivalent of "The MAGIC POTATO is the standard of morality". Its a stupid incoherent claim.
why is there no proper open discussion in these debates like back and forth? introductions are so boring. open discussions are better. it just seems to me like this other guy is scared to debate lol.
Good job Tom. This was not a good move by this church. It would be in their best interests to not engage in this kind of debate, especially with a poor of a performance by their apologist.
Why was Tom's Powerpoint not shown?
I find it surprising...that he dont realize...you can give excuses and even better say that god ppl lied about cananites
Wow, these Christian "arguments" are almost exclusively just claims.
Morality and logic go hand in hand morality is logic and rationale I don't need an old dumb book to tell me this
These theistic questions are really stupid.
53:42 the gods fought in the heavens? Hmmm interesting
Wait, the Bible doesn't make predictions about the natural world? Is the Christian sure about that? I'm quite certain the Bible mentions Jesus thought the world was supposed to end 2000 years ago, and Jesus was supposed to come back in the lifetimes of his 12 disciples. Those are both predictions about the natural world.
And NO!!!!! evidence for a ‘God’ NONE! ZERO! ZILCH! same old. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
What happened to 'still'?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect😂🤣😂🤣😂 I’m just showing how easy it is to think up your own comment style and not copy someone else’s. Unfortunately that TROLL!!!!! 🤡 Lester the Jester and that otrondal guy will COPY! that as well. I’ll just keep pulling them up. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@anthonyharty1732 👌
@@Dr.Ian-Plect👍 😁
@@anthonyharty1732thanks! I love the shout outs.
Emerging properties(you) give moral guidance and adaptation after 100 000's of years of evolution...
And STILL!!!!! Good evidences for a ‘God’ 😂
Hello you sausage, STILL! copying my style of comment Saddo. And STILL!!!!! Can’t give any evidences? EVIDENCE!!!!! for your hero imaginary friend. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 Give us all sensible people your EVIDENCE!!!! 1 2 3 GO!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@anthonyharty1732 Look at the trees! Look at all the leaves! Look at the rain, and the rivers and the lakes!
😂😂🤣😂🤣 I can’t believe you have come out with the ‘Look at the trees’ Fallacy. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣 That does not prove a ‘God’ did it. That silly argument has been debunked uncountable times. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
The problem is ancient because we are debating things that just arent debatable... Like whether or not reality is real lol😅. Theisrs are leaning haaaard into epistemic nihilism to shore up their superstitions
Very cool.
I believe in Dog.
New??!
yes
I'm by no means a scholar or an intellectual but I hate this making nice 'agree to disagree' tap dance about possible/probably the ultimate and most important question!
Rick's beliefs are errational, dangerous and horrific and he and the creepy moderator know that there friend Tom is going to hell!!!
This 'conversation' has no teeth, no merit thus no point (other than financial!!!)
The point is to appear rational and friendly to the parishioners whilst inoculating they against rationality.
Their* friend
wot's da standard for an atheist t say 'x' is rong' but 'y' is right?
@@adam_meek wots the standard of English? Higher than that
great stuff. the christyboi was nonsense. such bad arguments
And STILL no evidence for god
Hi, mushroom, And STILL!!!!! stealing my comment style. A cribber, who admitted stealing my comment style. See you again soon to remind you AGAIN!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Lestertjester Hi mushroom, And STILL!!!!! Stealing my comment style. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 The tea Leaf continues, the copying continues, the not use of his brain to think of something else continues. See you soon, to remind you again. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
lestertjester. And STILL!!!!! a Tea Leaf stealing my comment style. See you soon to remind you again. 😂🤣😂🤣😂
Umm...Tom could have just said the consent to be created question "an all-powerful God could make every human created always love that they get to exist"--if a God exists isn't it Him who creates all our personalities, wants and desires??
Isn't it he* who... (and you don't have to capitalise the pronoun for god-things.)
@@PhysiKarlz Got ya.
@@calmingwavesjulian youre right. God created the conditions for everything and knew what the outcome of those conditions would be.
If he couldnt have created them differently then he isnt god.
@@bertthompson4748 yep.
There is really only one question to answer. Does a god exist. If a god does not exist, but believers exist.. it is entirely possible to come up with all of these poetic license arguments of moral guidance, and how to treat others and pretend that a god has endorsed things. We are not arguing about what a god can do if it exists. We are arguing about does a god exist or not. These red herrings do not point to a god existing. They do not identify a god from a lineup of potential gods and they do not advance our knowledge of any such beings if they do exist.
I think we need to start holding them to the one question and do any of their answers actually demonstrate a god exists vs just supporting the idea of a god existing.
That's a different question, this is about morality. A god could exist and be immoral, or amoral.
@uninspired3583 I am pointing out morality is irrelevant. It does not demonstrate a god exists. It is yet one more thing the theist likes to assert. My point is, if it cannot conclusively demonstrate a god exists and validate anything about it, we are still focusing on the wrong questions.
@TaylorWalston agree it doesn't demonstrate a god exist, but it's literally the content of the debate, does theism or atheism a better model for objective morality
offar the other cheek.
just as jesus didn't.
wot a hipucrit.
In the name of the great Bruce Buffer and Still!!! Gonna feed the trolls
BEEP! TROLL! ALERT! BEEP! TROLL! ALERT! The self confessed TROLL! Veggie out the back, IS! back. Like ALL! TROLLS! can’t stop TROLLING! and LYING! Can’t even get the Buffer name right. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
@@anthonyharty1732You need professional help.
Especially the biggest TROLL!!!!! out there YOU!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😂