I disagree. He didn't yield the point and demure pending further consideration-- rather, he immediately jumped to argue for the non-necessity of moral categories.
I think he's just giving more honor to the creation than the creator, he has the heart for God, he just doesn't know that's what it is. He sees us as people in the image of God but not wanting to see God for who he is because sin casts a veil over our eyes and until you are born again a natural man can not understand things of the spirit
The police are certainly not moral agents. They can be corrupted, or can even be murderers. Just a few days ago, a Chicago police officer was convicted of killing a black teen. And, 6 other police officers helped stall the investigation, and cover up evidence. There needs to be more checks and balances in police departments and government agencies.
Most humans are altruistic. That is why the predators can succeed. They take advantage of those that are moral. Indeed a LOT of televangelists are doing exactly that. Taking advantage of the gullible to line their pockets.
Not because humans are altruistic by nature, because it can be perverted even were it nature, but because the police forces are notorious for being violent, cowardly, and sometimes even unpredictable.
@John Otalvaro.... Well Frank just said that "God wrote his moral code on our hearts"...did he just "misspell" it on some people? Morality is caring about the wellbeing of each individual, family, community and ultimately the world. It has nothing to do with the supersitions of goat herders written down on papyrus between 1500 and 5,000 years ago. The fact that Frank couldn't admit that humans being good and caring about each other wasn't enough( there has to be a god commanding it or it wasn't moral) just shows how warped the man is.
@@TJ-kk5zf if he isn’t, then all the people he has debated and even educated must also not be intelligent according to you, including myself and many others. I suppose depending on your perspective this could be true, if you’re the most intelligent person on the planet, but I doubt that you are.
@@spencergsmith do you even know what circular argument is? it's Turek's specialty. I'm a logic professor, so your petty insults are less than fleas, which you probably have
+Christian Philosophy Yes, it's also rare to find any scientifically-literate person who can say "you are right" to a flat-earther...and for similar reasons.
Elliot C Frank is a Christian-a well adverse and learned one.His faith makes him exceptional not his intellectual prowess-which is extraordinary.The problem atheism has is-it believes in God and hates that it does.Free will.
Elliot C Atheists own every argument theists throw at us. This video was an example of an authoritative teacher debating a brave atheist who stepped up to a mic in a room full of theists. You have to be next level intelligent to win that fight :-)
Point is: He is right. Morality is necessarily defined by an agent. If that agent is God, then it is objectively binding on all people and we have a basis for calling things good or evil. If that agent is man, then it's nothing more than personal preference, and you have no basis for calling anything good or evil. Then morality is whatever the person who has the power to enforce it wants it to be. It's as simple as that.
Humans are inherently good, bad choices is what makes human derive from what they have inherited from God, and that can start at a very young age. When you're a kid, your first lie would have probably tortured you for days, even if it was a "good" lie, now lying doesn't make me feel that way anymore, especially if it's for a "good reason" (while the truth is you should never lie and that's it). The reason for that is that through constant lying I've destroyed the consciousness that was making me dislike them. Repetitive evil deeds will kill off a good soul. But the soul was inherently good. Which is why you have no excuses on the day of Judgement, God guided you already when you were born and if you die on the wrong path, you can only blame yourself for the choices you made. Because if we do have one choice in this life, it's to listen to our consciousness.
Mr White, you’re saying we’re good (morally perfect) but the badness we have in us is from God? Woah, that’s extremely blasphemous... good luck on judgement day, I sincerely hope you get saved before then. Go watch some Living Waters.
@@Omariau I disagree with almost everything you said. I believe that people are born selfish. I have children and grandchildren now and I have watched them grow up. They want what they want and that is the most important thing to them. I have to teach them to share. I have taught them to care for others. When they lie for the first time it doesn't bother them. Only after I discipline them for lying do they feel bad. It is the repetitive discipline that makes them realize it was bad. Think about this, if people are inherently good why do we have a problem with stealing, lying, arson, rape, murder and wars? Why do people think they have a right to other people's possessions and property? You are right in that we have no excuse on judgment day but it is because that God set the standard and we are to selfish to abide by it.
@@heavnxbound I have no clue how you arrived to such a conclusion based on what I wrote. Keep your good luck, there's no such thing and that's not what I'll need when I stand before God.
Kevin Barton why does he need to find god? How do you know he doesn’t live a more thoughtful and caring life as is? You don’t need this belief to live a better life.
Kevin Barton I didn’t imply that you should do anything. I said this person or people don’t need a belief in a god to live a great meaningful life. But it seems you may be implying that bc you are praying for someone to find something that they may not be looking for or need. Also let me ask you this....what are you praying for exactly? For god to change its mind??
That ending made me happy. I want everyone to see how powerful it is to treat non believers with respect and love. Recognize that often times when they speak bitterly about our faith it’s a cry for help. All you have to do is plant a seed. Let the watering and growing up to God.
@Paul Morgan Oral traditions were fundamental back then because 90% of people were illiterate. All the knowledge about Alexander the Great we have was written about 400 years after him, that is how it was. It does not mean that what Alexander did was not real or what Jesus did was not real.
@Paul Morgan How do you know they didnt? Do you really think that all what was written back then is known by our historians? How many writings did not survive and were lost, we dont know. Do you watch Bart Ehrman much?
@@Niznuts123 "Our only goal is to open the door and share the message." OK the message rarely matches the Bible and the Bible does not match the real world. Its from ignorant men, not a god. Books that fully support slavery and have genocidal gods are not moral books even if they were not disproved as is the case for the Bible. Yes disproved as it describes a world we do not live in. Ethelred Hardrede
@A Stoic's Door All of our initial natural tendencies in life are selfish. We have to be taught repeatedly to say words like please and thank you. Yet very quickly on even if we're not taught, the first words that we know are mine and no. When toddlers are frustrated, regardless of the environment they've grown up and, they will hit. Etc. And if there's not a parent present to guide a child's upbringing and teach them right from wrong, they will grow up to be incredibly selfish people who think that it's okay to do whatever they want. And empathy doesn't necessarily dictate anything about morality. For example Hitler could have been empathetic if one of the Germans in charge of the concentration camps said he was tired and exhausted from work, but nobody would look at that example and conclude that's morally good empathy. Empathy is just relating to how somebody feels, doesn't mean anything in terms of morality.
@A Stoic's Door I think we are basically saying the same thing. Empathy can interact with morality but empathy can also occur irrespective of morality. I'm not saying they don't go hand in glove sometimes My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. They can but don't always co occur. As I said a serial killer feeling bad for another serial killer who got caught, is not by most standards a morally upstanding sentiment. But that's still empathy occurring
Or paid attention to that book, anyway. I´ve looked at Chinese history, and the Hongwu Emperor is a terrifying example of a kid who fought his way, with some Buddhist upbringing no less, and became a terror of millions. Genghis Khan is praised for his religious tolerance, after killing 40 plus million estimated. Khan´s relatives wiped out Baghdad and its Muslim learning center, which starts looking like at more specific issues in Christianity´s ability to establish University-based culture. India. Ashoka became a Buddhist emperor after brutal warring. Yet, Islam conquered many part of India, and Hinduism´s caste system is brutal overall. Africans like the Zulus conquered, and enslaved, as did the Iroquois Nation. Sacagawea had been enslaved by other Native Ams. Cabeza de Vaca had an African slave, and his small group of survivors were enslaved by Native Ams, until he/they escaped and he started healing.
The end was the best. It is interesting how people like to confront the Bible without reading the Bible first. How can I talk about a book before reading this book?
Definitely read the Bible, all of it. It’s the easiest way to see problems with Christianity. And at the same time, that goes both ways. Don’t refute facts which are inconvenient to religion or ignore science, then profess to have an informed opinion.
Frank does a great job of making the young man actually think about why he believes what he believes. As Frank reveals the confusion in the young man's thinking, the young man becomes correspondingly less and less confident. Interesting how confident we can be in unchallenged thinking. Very human.
long long discussions about objective moral values.....just utterly pointless. Why does dr Turek not actually provides some evidence that his objective moral values actually exist...?
ApaX1981 That's a poor rebuttal. The proof is already given in the Bible. Not only that, but it's evidence is obvious throughout human history, with the word of God as our guiding light.
It just shows that man is capable of evil with or without believing in a God. This point agrees with the Bible. So what if i seek out evil? Why am I wrong? Imagine each of 4 Billion humans having their own opinion on whats right and wrong, who is the ultimate authority then? I dont know about you, but I'd put my faith in a person who rose from the dead.
if its a book that frank turek is recommending, it most likely contains no truth, probably nothing but bald assertions, claims with no evidence, typical preachy sermon garbage us atheists are all too sick of hearing and reading. Christians all sound the same after a little while
@@randommanny7659 I've always wondered the context of 25:11-12. What's it truly mean? That there should be punishment for a reaction that isnt warranted by the crime?
@@oneadamtwelve86 kind of sounds like your unwilling to read it and preaching to others not to read it. Why? Isn't it better to hear both sides? Are you concerned with reading something that may have you questioning your opinions?
@@7EiamJ7 I have probably read and listened to more apologetics than most christians have. Also, i used to swallow it up when I was a christian too. Since I gave up religion I have been fascinated with the theism atheism debate. Also since that day I have never once heard a theist make one single argument for the existence of any gods that could stand up to any scrutiny. Every single one fails when you start questioning it. When the theist notices this they usually say something like, well you gotta have faith. And no I am not scared of reading things that question my beliefs. I do it all the time. But religious material has never made me question my beliefs. Except to wonder how so many grown adults can hold such outrageous beliefs with no evidence and not even notice it
xenoranger79 technically there is only 2 types of good... one is selfless (Sacrifice self for others, Gods way) and selfish ( sacrifice others for self), thats it... you cannot be both, but usually selfish people pretend to be good so they can be bad...
Nucularburrito2 a normal situation... i guess lol, its not about what you call it, its about the truth, and truth is there are 2 sides, thats it... that could be a situation that doesn’t pick a side necessarily i guess idk, its very complicated but truth is that there is 2 sides to it all!
AT Games so it's like how a Coin can land on its side. Doesn't that mean there is 3 sides? Sacrificing yourself, Sacrificing others and sacrificing no one. Continuing with the coin analogy there would also be the neither outcome of Sacrificing everyone. So those "2 truth's" can themselves turn into 4 because they are neither required nor mutually exclusive. And there would also be degree's of all of these For example image these gametheory payouts (You/Other) 2/1 4/0 -1/3 Assuming you pick a payment which one should you pick? Top path does good to the most people but doesn't do as much as possible for anyone Middle path has the highest total payout but doesn't help anyone besides yourself Bottom path helps others the most but has the lowest total payout. Of those 3 options which would be the best to take? A Utilitarionist would take the middle path. Someone that uses rules that always apply would take the top path. Someone that only cares about others would take the bottom path.
Nucularburrito2 i think you missed the point, sure nothing can happen of any moral truths, but that doesnt mean there isnt a moral truth. Its really important to simply understand, not comprehend, just to witness the difference and to choose, within yourself, the way of selflessness, sacrificing the self for others, The way of selfishness, sacrificing others for the self, There are also those suck in between, lost, incapable of choosing, even if they wanted to, they couldnt be good, cause led astray. Plus out of all this, there are those wanting to be evil but pretending to do good, etc etc its not that simple lol numbers cannot explain this truth, not possible to understand it the way you seek to grasp it cause that simply isnt with the truth... i think...
Humans are inherently able to know what is good and what is wrong because we are created by God and in His image. Romans 2:14-15 proves that the law is written in our hearts. Most people do not want to believe the existence of God because it makes us aware that we have to face the reality of our sin. But the problem most people don't want to be accountable for their actions.
Because saying an athority figure told you to do it is a great way to take responsibility. Real cleaver. Also what makes God an athority figure? What's so special about his opinion?
Greg Letter history is told from eye witness testimony, all history is told from eye witness testimony, the last part of of your comment is in-comprehensive , you started rambling giving you so called explain on how a sovereign god could be evil
This is an untrue and dark perception of human history. My parents sacrificed and cared for me for two decades. Yet this sentence has zero room in your interpretation of history. Pull you head out.
Yeah sometimes it's hard to debate people like this because they usually are so stuck in their bubble, they have no real evidence to back it up but they think everything they say is evidence and if you don't counter everything then they think they got you
@@Supermonkeyfun frank provided 0 evidence to his point, morals arent objective, even if they were theres no connection to any deity. You cant prove something with itself. Example= "hey this book says im the fastest man alive" wheres the proof? "Its written in the book" 10/10 logic
@@belphemmore3802 no you simply lack understanding, what makes killing wrong? What makes stealing wrong? Why do we have a moral compass which tells us to not do those things? If morals were subjective then we wouldn't need laws, if someone thinks it's ok to murder it's ok to murder? If someone thinks it's ok to rape then it's ok to rape because they think it's ok?
@@Supermonkeyfun i simply lack understanding? ok, law enforcement was put in place so people didnt commit what we as a society deem a "crime". This establishment would not need to be in place if we all shared a moral standard, you think robbing, rape and killing is wrong right?? if your morals were objective then so would everyone else, therefore having law enforcement would be redundant as no person would commit crimes. the fact that we are both debating morals and have different morals proves that morality is subjective and differs from person to person. im gonna give you an example and make it easy for you to understand= i will assume you think slavery is wrong, right?? i also think that the ownership, subjugation, and abuse of another life is wrong.. but now lets skip back 150 years.. do you think people thought the same way? was slavery immoral? if you have any sort of history knowledge then you'd know of the civil war and the countless societies that thrived off of slavery (bible has slavery too) but wait a minute.... SLAVERY IS WRONG!! SO WHY WAS IT ONLY ABOLISHED 150 YEARS AGO?? you might ask... because people's morals change by society, and this change only came about recently... you were taught to be compassionate and to hold no prejudice towards others based on race or economic standards, this wasnt the case before which is why people grew up with resentment towards blacks.. another example would be a kid growing up with poor parents or parents that have substance abuse issues or kids that get abused themselves.. these kids grow up in neglected households, the streets, or in slums, and grow to make up the majority of crimes, why? because they learned it from their environment. (there's countless data to back this up) i think you lack the capacity to see what objectivity means, math is objective, the laws of gravity is objective.... morals arent, no matter where you are born gravity will work the same, the same isnt true for your morals. your own statement provides me with the proof to show that morals are subjective """"""If someone thinks it's ok to rape then it's ok to rape because they think it's ok?"""" the fact that you aknowledge that another individual is capable of thinking that rape is ok proves that morals are subjective, objective morals would by definition prohibit anyone from mistaking "good" from "evil"
Ross Cicero he’s not nuts but he has been sold a pup. It’s a popular atheist theory that was invented to plug a gaping hole in their story. I agree. Humans are not inherently good or altruistic. Far from it. Sure, they’re all capable of goodness and altruism equally as much as they’re all capable of selfishness and violence. Inherently good? I don’t think so.
Humans are naturally good. I don’t see any little children hating people, or wanting to kill people, or targeting someone in order to hurt them in any way shape or form... Children are taught these things.
yeah I guess he really is a good person. I know humans are evil because I see so much evil in myself. We seem to perceive others based on how we perceive ourselves.
Yeah, we’re SO confident that it’s just inherent to care about and take care of one another, that we lock our doors at night so that no one who “cares about us” can come in.
@@TheOne-Aslan I sometimes wonder if they don't believe in God and hate him so much then why even bother searching up videos about God and wasting time debating with christians telling them they're wrong?🤔
@@jamesmccloud7535 Because Satan has filled their mind with so much hatred that their only action is to bring others down with them. Poor things they are.
@Jaden Boisrond If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist. Morality is objective and absolute. Therefore, God must exist. If morality is objective and absolute, Zeus must exist. Morality is objective and absolute. Therefore, Zeus must exist. Argument from morality is flawed, because even if objective morality exists, you still have no proof for premise "If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist." All we can say is objective morality exist and we don't know why and how. God is not proven there.
@Paul Morgan Even if God wasn't real and Christianity is a hoax, even cold hard atheist scholars say that Jesus' historical existence is undeniable. Whether he is the Son of God or not, his existence is undeniable.
God Bless You all. All Glory Honor Praise Worship and Thanksgiving to God. Jesus is King. THANK YOU GOD FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THANK YOU JESUS FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THANK YOU HOLY SPIRIT FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I LOVE YOU GOD WITH ALL MY HEART, SOUL, MIND AND STRENGTH
Thank you Frank for showing non believers their choosing not to believe what truthful shows the desire of their flesh and bad habits..God bless you all!!NZ Wellington Porirua Loves you all
4:52 is a moment that we ALL need to be willing to come to when we follow the evidence where it leads! Respect this man for being wiling to admit his change in thought publicly!
A wary mind can see he is a con artist. Why is God good? Why is God's will good? Why is being created good? Why is being given life good? You people act like you have some superior and subliminal "anchor" to deciding morality, but in reality you are just refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word that people decided when they attempted to communicate a concept: which was empathy and social productivity. You cant answer your own questions, without boiling down to divine dictatorship.
@@applecore8978 morality doesn’t exist if there’s no ultimate ground factor. If is based on social cultural relativism then morality is nothing but an illusion. And if God doesn’t exist then free will is unreal and therefore morality has no value, what makes morality so beautiful is the ability to choose to be good.
He put up an impressive fight. I can easily see how people get confused about how they justify what they do. But when it all comes to light, atheists do forcefully insist they're the most logical. But without a logical foundation for fundamental issues, they actually end up just being hypocrites. What's scary is they usually don't know it! What's amazing is how many fundamental issues they must be ignorant of just to maintain their ignorance. Because it really does take an objective force beyond nature to establish the things we take for granted in life, morality, physics, logic, science... You name it. It's funny, if you think about it, because with God, reality can be neatly and categorically laid out from beginning to end, up and down, side to side, everything in a logical progression to explain what we're all here to witness. The origin of all must be infinite, powerful, intelligent, personal, etc... Try asking an atheist or secularist of any sort to do the same. To date, I have yet to see anything they have to say that flows, is sound and authoritative. "The big bang happened and all the scientist's agree!" That sounds desperate, at best, to me. I'd love to meet the scientist/s and see the actual equipment they used to make that belief magically flip flop into a fact... The point is... Eventually, people have to put their faith in someone! God is just a better candidate when it comes to the truth about this particular creation.
What reason is there to assert that it takes an objective force outside of nature to establish anything? On what grounds to you assert that something infinite, powerful, intelligent and personal is required? This makes zero sense to me and seems to have no basis. You seem to think atheists believe in the Big Bang in the way you believe in a god. I just think that it’s the most well evidenced and coherent explanation so far and if new evidence leads to new models in the future so be it. I have no vested interest in finding evidence for the things I believe but rather will follow the evidence where it leads - unlike theists. I don’t need to have ‘faith’ in what scientists tell me, I suspect that they know what they are talking about since science makes accurate predictions and develops awesome technologies. Magic and mythology on the other hand don’t do anything of the sort.
@@doubriewotsit4090 Gosh.. are you serious? How can any objectivity exist without an objective external force? How can subjectivity create an objective reality? That's illogical. If all of creation did not result from objectivity, then everything had to be subjective. This means nothing is "true"... all the laws of physics, maths and everything is simply the result of personal interpretation. This means the tools you trust to prove God is not True are not true in the first place. This includes yourself. How can your mind be trusted to make truth statements when truth doesn't even exist? This is the first step to insanity. How can you prove TRUE=TRUE is a true statement? Why is that true? What IS truth in a subjective reality? Absolute truth has to be the superstructure for ALL matter. Outside of objective truth, there IS NO truth... anywhere.
John C So why go on about ‘truth’. It’s just what is. Reality. The laws of physics etc are not the result of anything they are simply observations we have made about the nature of the universe around us that have massive predictive power. They seem to be correct because so far they haven’t failed us. If they were to fail, they’d have to be revised. So what? I can trust my observations and interpretations of reality to as much extent as they continue to be a reliable way to make predictions. It’s not about being trusted to make truth statements. It’s about the best observations of reality we have as an individual and collectively. The more our observations agree and are reliable the more useful they are to us. That’s all. What’s ‘trusted to make truth claims’ about? No one is ‘trusted to make truth claims’. We each state things as we see it from the evidence around us. Usually these line up pretty well with each other. Not always, but what you gonna do?
@@doubriewotsit4090 I am going to trust God. Whilst I agree with you on many things, our perspectives are different. It is not the laws of physics that would need revising.. it is OUR understanding of those laws that needs revising. You may have meant to say the same thing, but really, you didn't..and that is significant. For before man even walked on the earth, these laws were functioning perfectly. So if the natural mind was not there in the beginning, it could have no part in the cause of all of nature. Therefore one thing is CERTAIN is that we are not creators of creation. Wherefore we ought to expression more humility towards Him that was the cause of all of nature.
John C John C Regarding laws of physics that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Reality is just what reality is and the ‘laws’ bit is just us making sense of it. Physical reality is what it is before during and after human existence. We are a complete irrelevance. I just can’t fathom how and why you conclude there is some agent that decided to create. I cannot follow that leap. There is absolutely nothing to suggest it.
"Man is caring and altruistic. Just as it has been for our history" does that mean slavery (also been around for all our history and up until the last few hundred years has been accepted) so slavery must be good if you care about your slave
@@eldermikedavis9518 this is how he came about , slavery would be ok on the exception of treating them ok... Given thats not what made slavery in bible times acceptible or solely for that reason But before i continue i want to establish the idea of chattel slavery and how it differs from bible times slavery, yes its very evident how different they are and how slavery from the past few centuries have been redefined to be understood that way instead of what it really is or was. For example slavery that we all know of consist of slaves being stolen and sold and robbed in sense from their rights(god given rights by force). When the bible clearly states Exodus 21 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. This of course can be read in context but its evident that anyone who steal a man and sell him is to be punished. So with that we can already see the difference of slavery from bible times and slavery from the past centuries. Now let us address why slavery was growing and the purpose of it in bible times. Most of the slavery was due to a couple purposes, some for economic reasons, some due to war and some like i said to pay of a debt. As you might already be familiar, slaves as well as masters were given rights and rules for both individuals. The master was to dicipline his slave but for valid reasons....he couldnt just throw a tantrum and start wooping his slave for no reason. And the slave were to serve their masters for 7 years, given if they voluntarily offered themselves to begin with( as you are aware chattel slavery had no voluntary action needed, they were just stolen and yea) During this times, it was convinient for the ones that needed a place to stay, say maybe even help to take care of their families or like i said to pay of a debt. Hence they were provided for those things until their time was up. Pretty neat eh? Many objections to this come from the beatings of slaves but be very careful on those accusations. Since even prisons have the authority to dicipline their inmates for not following orders and or being stiff necked, and im sure parents have given the belt to a kid or two to get a point across but lets not assume so as to injure them badly. So i would like to point out this verse in order to adress that part Exodus 21 20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Now you can always read this in context again so as to see for yourselves that their is not tampering here...but note that it says if one strikes their slave and he or she dies, that owner is to be avenged(god doesnt take lightly these things) But it says if after a day or two he or she is ok and well then of course the master shall not be avenged for the slave is his money, property(or any other word that any translation wants to put there) Note: Now you would have to use your head to get an idea of how hard the master would have to hit his slave with that rod that would allow the slave to be ok and well at a maximum of two days after being strucked. Heavy hits can take alot too heal and can render a person to struggle to move. So i leave that to you guys. So these are just examples of why slavery was a practiced thing and how it differs completely from the slavery we are all too familiar with.... Given our economy nowadays and the message that christ gives, puts on in circumstances where slavery today is not neccesary as well as not the way to go when it comes to treating each others as loving neighbor's. In the new Testament there were still accounts of slavery for example Ephesians 6 5 Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b]with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man,8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free.9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master[c] and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. So of course this lays out what a servant ought to behave and act as with his master and of course how the master how he ought to remember that he who is the master of all is the one who even allows for them to have -master- i mean slaves in the first place and such a god as he treats them they ought to treat their slaves as well, not to treat their slaves as cruel. So to summarize slavery was used as a last resort. Given circumstances specially here in america it is not a thing that should be considered and on the side that it should not be thought of as dark as some make it out to be, though now adays we even have paper contracts amongs companies and employers lol and like i said even pleas when it comes to a case of laws. Its cool how slavery when we know how to organize ourselves and learn how to treat others can render slavery as not needed
Elliot C The foundation comes from an evolutionary byproduct that aids in survival. We are inherently moral because we're social creatures that depend on each other. this dependant nature creates relationships that in turn creates the love one feels for it's species. humans aren't the only animal with this evolutionary trait, it's found throughout all social creatures, it's a natural reaction amongst social beings that depend on each other. you're trying to stick a god where it isn't needed, if you need a god to be moral then you are not moral.
King Koopa. I think the point is that you can't really say objectively why some action is objectively morally right or wrong unless there is a God. You can say that evolution is the reason why we behave a certain way, but if you look at other animals(say Cheetah's for example), there evolution tells them to hunt and kill other animals for food. It's all about survival for some animals. By your worldview, some humans(say psychopaths for example), have no moral sense and may murder someone. This would be due to their genetics right? But we would say what he did was still wrong. Why is there such a thing as objevtive morality? If you are an athesit/naturalist/materialist, then the best explanation is that morality is not even a thing. Just some concept we made up about how most of us typically behave. And there is no such thing as right and wrong. DNA just is and we dance to its music. However, this view also presents a problem because it gives us no reason to believe we have free will. And so if our DNA controls everything, this would also include our beliefs. And so nothing you believed to be true you could know for sure because you wouldn't be deciding your beliefs.
This is one of my favorite videos from Dr. Turek. He masterfully dismantles how ludicrous atheism is. Using science to explain science is circular reasoning. Like a rat stuck in a maze.
The phrase "intent is prior to content" comes to mind towards the end of this discussion. When Frank asks the student "if Christianity was true would you become a Christian?" the students responds yes, but when Frank asks the student to read a book that might corroborate that the student declines and clearly shows his hand. His intent was not about discovering if Christianity was true or not, but to try and prove why it's not true b/c he had already made up in his mind that it wasn't true. Hope he reads the book.
You are lacking in your reasoning here. There are thousands of worldviews with books about them that potentially could be true. This student has most likely already heard many Christian apologetics arguments and found them lacking. Why put serious effort in something that is highly unlikely to yield results? Would you read the books on Hindu, Bhaal cult, Minoan cult, Native American religions etc etc etc to discover their truths? Why expect others to make a special exception for Christianity? Your religion is no more special than the thousands of others out there.
killer4hire Turns out you are lacking in your reasoning my friend. "This student has most likely already heard many Christian apologetics arguments and found them lacking." Based on his responses he CLEARLY hasn't, and even if he had heard them he doesn't know what's in the book. That is evident in the fact that he clearly couldn't defend his position OR argue against Franks. He was arguing in what is known as a 'vicious circle'. So no, he is not informed on the arguments or even the basic tenets of logic. Arguing in a circle that way is a blatant logical fallacy. "Why put serious effort in something that is highly unlikely to yield results?" That statement is at the very least extremely ignorant considering if Christianity is true and God does exist that would be the most important piece of knowledge you could ever receive precisely b/c your entire ETERNAL existence depends on it. That is NOT a trivial matter. "Would you read the books on Hindu, Baal cult, Minoan cult, Native American religions etc etc etc to discover their truths?" I wouldn't have to b/c Christianity is separate from all other religions in many different ways. Most if not all other religions are 'works-based' religions, Christianity is not. Christ came and is the bridge that connects the great chasm between our fallen race and a holy God. Christianity is also separate in the fact that it most corresponds to reality on many different levels. "Why expect others to make a special exception for Christianity?" I'm not and I don't know who is. If you are going to DEBATE Christianity at least know what it is about. Frank didn't force him to walk to the mic and debate, that was the students decision. So your claim is incorrect. 'Your religion is no more special than the thousands of others out there." That's your opinion, but I think I already started to show why that is clearly not the case.
@@killer4hire I'd put money on his not having read any books of Christian apologetics! and furthermore, many of us Christians have studied a lot of other world religions. I did this in high school, I devoured everything I could get on Hinduism and Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc. But I'm also a prolific reader. I'd also bet this young man hasn't read these books either. And if he had studied much history, he wouldn't sound so confident about the morality of mankind!
From a psychological and neurological standpoint... Humans remember bad experiences more than pleasant experiences cos that helps protect them from future danger. That's reinforces the fact that humans look out for themselves and are inherently selfish, not altruistic.
@@piercemchugh4509 Both experiences are registered by your brain, and used to make decision in the future. That's why you know you should not put your hand in fire, or that sex feels good.
@@elitesam7789 What does any of your examples have to do with selfishness? It is not selfish to learn. Intelligence is not the same thing as selfishness.
@@piercemchugh4509 The registered intelligence makes the average human (instinctively) look after themselves before they step in for anyone. Because they would rather not register that pain again. That's where the selfish part comes in.
@@elitesam7789 1. That is a very uncharitable and one sided definition of "selfish." 2. And yet people clearly do often have the capability to do things against their own health and well being to help others despite the consequences, so you cannot just eliminate that just as powerful feeling of empathy and altruism. You choose to look at one side of the coin, award it dominance for no reason, and ignore the other side of the coin completely. Plenty of people die for others, even strangers. Parents are willing to die for their kids and loved ones.
His foundation is from an is. That's logically fallacious. His logical fallacy is the is-ought fallacy. Just because something is this way, that doesn't follow logically that therefore it is how it ought to be. But at least he was able to admit that he was wrong.
Actually the is-ought distinction applies to all moral systems, including theistic ones. If it is the case that God says it's good to do X, that doesn't make it the case that you ought to.
@@superdog797 Yeah yeah that Euthyphro dilemma again. It’s not just because he commands it that makes it good. But there must be a source of good. Something isn’t just good because God commands it’s good if he himself is the standard of what it means to be good. And to be the standard of good one must actually understand what morality is
@@chaosinorder9685 The point is that your critique of morality on the basis of the is-ought distinction hurts theists just as much as it hurts secular systems of morals. It doesn't help your case and therefore is an irrelevant criticism in the context of a moral discussion couched between theism and atheism. If you simply define "morality" or "goodness" as God and then by force of will refuse to consider any other proposition then there's no point in having a discussion. All you've done is arbitrarily select a definition of morality that is _precisely_ the point of contention in the context of a discussion on the question of "What is good? What is moral? How should God fit into the picture, if at all?" Because morality exists _within_ the mind and because it is _necessarily_ tied to subjective states of emotion and sensation, there is always and forever a _necessarily subjective_ element to any form of morality you consider. If you try to get out of it by just defining the word "God" as "goodness" or "morality" then you haven't actually solved the problem - you've just used language to obscure the nature of the philosophical problem. God is a mind, and therefore, if God has moral sentiments, and those moral sentiments are what you call morality, then you have morality - but, obviously, it's still subjective. Your argument is tantamount to saying "it is a fact that God is goodness and morality, therefore, any system of morals that contradicts or doesn't acknowledge this is not a coherent moral system, and furthermore, it is logically consequential that atheism cannot be moral." Well, that's not an argument. That's just a self-declaration of victory. Secular moral systems arbitrarily based on notions of suffering and happiness are the same exact thing as theistic moral systems arbitrarily based on God as "goodness" and "morality" - one is not _logically_ superior to the other, and therefore your critique that there is a _logical_ problem with the interlocutor's position (but implicitly not your _own_ ) is irrelevant. It doesn't _progress_ the debate at all and is effectively a tu quoque fallacy.
How many are watching not only for the cross examination but learning how to dialogue with respect and how to communicate and argue without anger and resentments.
@Jack Of All Trades With all due respect, I just don't understand why any non believer wishes to post comments rubbishing someone's deeply held beliefs. A TH-cam comment section is not the place for a debate on the existence of God or the inerrancy of the Bible, if that is what you were after. You must know that yes? As for your age or background, it means little to me. You won't be the first to lose your faith. Many do and many return to it again. I was raised protestant, went to Sunday school, did my scripture exams, (non of the gimmicky nonsense I see in these youth groups in the US today,) and drifted into unbelief in my twenties. My love of the Bible was not lost though and I continued to read it and study it throughout my period of unbelief, which lasted nearly two decades. Now, I am back home where I belong and it still strikes me just how mean spirited and arrogant atheists can be, I thought that even when I was one! You judge yourself able to tell me what truth is, even the most high profile, learned atheists of, (in all probability,) a far greater intellect than you don't presume to *know* whether there is definitely no God. It's a claim you just can't make! So my question to you is this, what did you hope your comment would achieve? I'm genuinely curious.
@Jack Of All Trades well with your background, having spent so long as a Christian and knowing so much more than me apparently, you would know that it's sin not unbelief that sends you to Hell, but whatever. You didn't really answer the question and are still doing that thing where you try and talk about what you know to be true rather than what you believe. That's the arrogance I was talking about. I know that I could be wrong, I don't believe I am, but I know I could be. You won't even countenance that you could be. Your comment was churlish, it made you seem arrogant and mean spirited and achieved nothing. If persuading ppl to your view is your aim, you need to up your game.
@UCdNbl15HIFTb_0ePUJFykAQ Jack Of All Trades you should know that whether you go to Hell because of sin or rejection of Jesus is a hotly debated issue amongst various denominations. The idea that you think you are correct when you quote bible verses is pretty funny, you are an atheist trying to argue an opposing Christian theological viewpoint. Oh the irony. I could argue my viewpoint and quote verses too but that would be absurd in this context. Secondly, I don't believe in a young earth or a literal creation story, you don't know what I believe. Third, you're such a simplistic thinker. You think Georges Lemaitre didn't use his mind? Perhaps you think you're cleverer than him right? I mean what a dullard he must've been eh, believing in God as he did. You are obviously an intellectual giant yes??!😂 If only he could have benefitted from the wisdom of someone like you! But seriously, I can hardly believe you're 65, you talk like a teenager. You're a patronising tosser to boot. Btw, I didn't read your second comment, I couldn't be arsed. *Definitely* can't be arsed to read any reply to this either. Laters.
no human invented wrong from right, and suddenly everybody accepted. It's an instinct, given from God, that's something an animal doesn't have. An animals instinct is live and reproduce as much as possible, my theory is that they don't have a soul like we do, and our soul (what gives us feelings, love, envy, hate) is evidently seen through humanity.
*no human invented wrong from right, and suddenly everybody accepted.* Right and wrong are ideals that conform to human well being. Harming the well being of others is considered "wrong", and improving well being is "right". *It's an instinct, given from God, that's something an animal doesn't have.* How do you know it was given to us by God? Why do you need to invoke God to understand morality? Morality isn't that hard to understand once you understand how we go about making moral determinations. *my theory is that [other animals] don't have a soul like we do* That's nice. How did you come to this "theory?" How did you even determine that humans have a soul? What exactly is this soul that you speak of? *and our soul (what gives us feelings, love, envy, hate) is evidently seen through humanity.* Have you ever studied, or interacted, with Chimps or Bonobos? Both are the closest, non-human, living relatives of humans. Chimps will engage in wars with other groups of chimps, and are even known to kill one another inside their own group. Bonobos are quite the opposite, and are quite loving, and will regularly exchange sex. In short, moral behavior can be observed in other species, as can these emotions that you seem to think other animals are deprived of.
***** *atheism is just sophistry, nothing else* I doubt that. Atheism at it's core is simply skepticism towards the claim that any deities exist, and does not need to claim that god(s) don't exist. *Whether you convince yourself that you won't be held accountable or not; we'll all give account for our lives to God & we don't lose anything by living with this conviction* How do you know this is actually true? Why do you trust that the words from a book are true when there is no way to empirically verify this claim? As for the claim that "we don't lose anything by living with this conviction", you're simply wrong. What you lose is your intellectual honesty. You lose part of your humanity by believing that you can just ask Jesus to forgive you for the harm you do to others, rather than working to correct the harm you've caused. *but we'd lose immensely if we live presuming atheism is true & it turns out to be false.* How do you know this? How do you know that God doesn't care about intellectual honesty? How do you know that God doesn't hate Christians, and punishes them for believing their nonsense? *We don't get Being from ourselves;* What the hell does this mean? I can't make sense of this. *it is therefore logically necessary for there to be a 'necessary being' that is both 1st cause & the foundation in which all other beings depend.* Perhaps, but it doesn't follow that this first cause must be your God, or that this first cause even exists anymore. *It's also necessary for there to be an immaterial cause of the universe because it began & all that begins has a cause.* How do you know this? What we have experience for is material things having material, and efficient, causes. How does something like the universe have a material, or efficient, cause when there is no material? What does cause mean if cosmologists are right and there was no time? *You wouldn't feel things are unjust & bad if you didn't have an idea of justice & goodness.* This is just a tautology. Justice, and goodness, are subjective concepts, and require subjective values in order evaluate. *They're immaterial realities, just like numbers.* If you want to convince me that Platonism is true, then you have an awful lot of work to do. Numbers are concepts. Concepts exist because there are brains to conceive them. *That's why they're so universal across our species.* As humans we've all virtually clones of one another. We all have the same brain structure, and we have the ability to create, and transmit, concepts between one another. I don't need to invoke the "immaterial" to explain these things...
'animal doesn't have' That's a very big claim. Do you know that Elephant, Kangaroo and many other animals have stronger family bonds than us humans? Within a species, most animals are very kind to one another: wolves sharing food, bird stay in herds, fish turning female from male to give birth, and many other instances. It's just that they have to kill different animal for them to survive, and we can explain that by the 'food chain' in biology. Prove to me this is immoral for animals. Or we are given the privilege to kill whatever non-human we want, but animals don't have the right to. 'they don't have a soul' Pretty sure you don't own any animal, and never seen animals in real life for weeks to see how they function.
WeAreTheLight you must be a robot just reacting to stimulus then. Like Dawkins said “dancing to DNA’s music.” And if you are a product of a MINDLESS, unguided process(evolution), why should I believe you or even what you say? Why should I believe a mindless ape’s opinion? Btw, you want some of my banana? Lol!
OBVIOUSLY that college kid is NOT a parent. A 10 minute session babysitting a 2 year old would SMASH his argument of humans being altruistic and caring...😂😂😂
@Paul Morgan yes the God of the Bible is pure, good and perfect. But for the sake of the argument, let me agree with you and say that God and a monster and bad. That does not take away from the fact that humans are inherently not good, not altruistic and selfish, capable to do the most horrible things.
@Paul Morgan yes. You are the first human being that lives in a house without doors (since no one is ever going to harm you hence you dont need to protect yourself and those around you), you don't even need to work because people are so good that they will always take care of you, never be afraid of being robbed because human beings are good and they will never do that to you. We have millions of cases of rape, homicide et al but they only exist in my mind, l know that's now reality since human beings are awesome. Thank God, you live in a world where every human beings are good and l am the only person on the planet that thinks that human beings are bad. I just please hope that one day if someone in your family gets hurt/raped/murdered you think about how wonderful and how altruistic people are.
@Paul Morgan none. Because we live in a planet where injustice, sin(which is an invention) , rape, death (more inventions)and so on do not exist. That stuff is made up and we live in a planet where human beings are spectacularly good, selfless and caring and nothing bad ever happens since they are all altruistic and great.
0:51 - _"Why is that good?"_ This is red herring. Why is it relevant if it's objectively good or not (in other words if it ought to be this way)? He didn't claim that it *ought* to be this way, he claimed that it *is* this way. Using Hume's guillotine against atheism doesn't make theistic position immune to it. Have a look at this dialogue (A - atheist; T - theist): A: Why is that good? T: Because God said so; thus, it is so. A: This is how things *are*, not how they *ought* to be. Why they *ought* to be this way? T: Because it is God's will. A: It's still an _is_, not an _ought_. T: But it's God's _is_. A: It still is an _is_. T: But how things God wants to be, *is* how things *ought* to be. A: But you're just begging the question instead of giving the reasons. Furthermore, what if God decides that killing is good? Would this make killing good? T: ... Introducing the concept of God does not solve this problem. The more relevant question is: Why it *ought* to be objectively good in the first place?
You make a good point. But I think the point Frank enforces here is that, saying something is morally good is based on faith that an objective "is" exists. God is our objective standard and I'm fine to admit that. The position of God is not that He is within time and space, but rather that he is ultimately the root entity, so it makes perfect sense that God would be both the ought and is -- that is the entire point. It's intellectually dishonest to say that there isn't objective truth when making objective moral statements like "caring for others is certainly good." To answer your question: The reason to find out why something ought to be, is so that one can be consistent in reasoning. If your reasoning is based off of an initial root cause, which holds objective truth -- then you can be consistent with that logic and state objective truths based on that reasoning. However, if your claim is that everything is merely natural, with no ultimate objective truth, then the only way you can remain consistent with that reasoning would be to deny that "caring for others" is an objective moral responsibility, stating different from would be inconsistent with the previous reasoning. Then the next question that could arise from that would be; "Why should someone ought to be consistent in reasoning?" The answer to this would be; If there is no such thing as objective truth, then there is no basis for consistent reasoning, as everything would be an assumption leading from trust in senses and thought. If objective truth does exist, then it would be very beneficial to find out what that objective truth is. "Why would it be very beneficial to find out what the objective truth is?" Like Frank brought up in this video, when speaking to people with extremely different worldviews, like Nazi, if there is no objective standard, then it's your word vs theirs and ultimately you're just both naturally responding to your evolutionary instincts and no one is wrong. However, if objective truth exist, it would be beneficial as it can transform the hearts of men who trusted in their own standards, which has proven to be extremely powerful. The mere fact that anything at all actually "is," calls for a reasonable person to investigate, for the sake of intellectual consistency. Yes, we claim that God is the ultimate; ought and is and we are consistent in that reasoning. The only way an atheist could be consistent in his reasoning would be to say "I do not know that anything is right or wrong for certain." Where as we say; "We claim that x is wrong because it is the standard set by God." From there, it's all down to world view and who is God. But at least with arguments like this, people should become more intellectually honest and consistent in their reasoning. I have faith in God, objective truth and I am consistent in my reasoning. There's no purpose in making any claims or reasoning if there is no such thing as objective truth. Everything is not relative, because if that were so, then such a claim "everything is relative" would not be possible to form. If everything were relative, then the entire way of human reasoning and thinking is detached from reality, because people make objective claims and rely on laws all the time. If everything is relative, then nothing at all "is" or would "be." If God said "Murdering is good" then yes, I would have to be consistent in my reasoning and if that were the case, then murdering wouldn't be something that would convict someone in their heart based on the world view of a God. That would be the same as saying to an atheist: "If the world didn't exist" -> but the properly basic belief of existence demands that the world does exist. I have a properly basic belief that morality comes from God and He said that you shall not murder. Be consistent in reasoning, hold back no deep thought, ultimately you will end up at your root faith and trust. If there's no objective moral standard, be consistent in that. If there is an objective standard, be consistent with that. There is no good in lying to yourself.
Jordan M Richards, your argument is well-formulated and constructive, but it still begs the question. Let me explain why. _"The position of God is not that He is within time and space, but that he is ultimately the root entity, so it makes perfect sense that God would be both the ought and is -- that is the entire point."_ And you are still talking about how things *are*. You are making ethical judgements based on an _is_, not an _ought_. _"It's intellectually dishonest to say that there isn't objective truth when making objective moral statements like "caring for others is good.""_ No. That's an opinion, not an objective moral statement. I can easily disagree by saying that caring for people removes motivation and makes them lazy. _"The reason to find out why something ought to be, is so that one can be consistent in reasoning. If your reasoning is based off of an initial root cause, which holds objective truth -- then you can be consistent with that logic and state objective truths based on that reasoning."_ Then the question is, how is it an objective truth that God ought to make the moral standards? _"However, if your claim is that everything is merely natural, with no ultimate objective truth, then the only way you can remain consistent with that reasoning would be to deny that "caring for others" is an objective moral responsibility, stating different from would be inconsistent with the previous reasoning."_ I'm not denying that; I have refuted that.
+Giorgi Gzirishvili I do not debate or post comments on TH-cam much so this is quite new to me. Thank you for your prompt reply, so that I do not forget to respond. :) "And you are still talking about how things are. You are making ethical judgements based on an is, not an ought." >> Yes. You are absolutely right. This is what the purpose of the "faith" element to my argument was. The worldview of a theist is the faith that God is the "ought" and merely "is" and I am aiming to be consistent when I speak based in the faith that God "is" and "ought to be" the objective truth. It's not something that I can defend, but rather a faith position based on many different things which are debated elsewhere. It is dishonest for anyone to claim they have no faith. I think it is very healthy for an atheist to think about where their faith lies. Is the faith in a claim such as "there is no ultimate ought?" for instance. Frank in the video explained why this is very dangerous. "No. That's an opinion, not an objective moral statement. I can easily disagree by saying that caring for people removes motivation and makes them lazy." >> I was quite careless by using the words 'caring for others.' (That's funny!) What I meant was "loving others." Regardless, I would then refute that by stating; "God instructs us to treat others as we'd expect to be treated and to love others." >> This is irrelevant from whether it would make someone lazy, or removes motivation -- both of which do not actually hold up anyway. (Considering that when I personally help someone else, it actually makes me more productive in my own personal projects and motivates me to earn more, so I can help others more.) Moreover, in your opinion it is not an objective moral statement. But I see it as a statement that is an objective claim. Claiming that something "is" is a claim and it's important that claims are consistent with that person's initial objective truth source. -- An opinion based on faith that an objective moral standard exists. The opinion holds up and is consistent in my root reasoning and worldview. If I made that same statement as an atheist, I could still hold that opinion, but it wouldn't hold up without admitting to an objective moral standard existing in the first place. "Then the question is, how is it an objective truth that God ought to make the moral standards?" >> I wouldn't use the term "God ought to make the moral standards," but rather I would word your question as "Why is it that God ought to be good?" as the the claim is that God's will is what good actually is. Moral standards come from God's very nature, that God is good. A lack of being obedient to God's goodness by seeking own will over God's nature comes sin -- moral disobedience. I cannot prove that this is ought how it be, but I have explained how it is reasonably consistent with me making a claim such as; "Loving others is good." "I'm not denying that; I have refuted that." >> Great. I apologise. I was trying to be clear, as I know that others are likely to read the comment. But, I should have been more clear by making it obvious that it was not directed at you, but rather a statement to enforce my argument.
T: morality is not based on god's decisions, as saying that something is right or wrong would be arbitrary. morality is not what god says, but what god IS. god cannot say that killing is good because it goes against his perfect nature. if god just made certain things bad out of mid- air, than they would be arbitrary, but its god's nature, the same nature that was placed in us, that allows us to know what is good and what is bad. A: ...
It would have been an interesting debate with a (moral) nihilist... Putting religious in a moral debate with a humanist has predictable outcomes, as the former group had millenia to perfect bullshitting. (Also the kid did miss some fine arguments, namely: "why is the existence of humanity good?" -> Because non-existence is not good, hence existence is a better alternative (for the subject in question), and since we don't give non-persons / inanimate objects a moral value, this is the only thing that should matter)
_"why is the existence of humanity good?" -> Because non-existence is not good, hence existence is a better alternative_ I don't see how that solves anything. That only repeats what the kid did a few times in the video already; come up with more moral beliefs seemingly out of nowhere. Turek is just going to ask again, 'why is non-existence not good?'
Black Knight To be frank, i am a moral nihilist, but i have some objections about this debate that is why i responded. Good can be only defined. (It is a theoretical construct, an idea - lets put aside where it exists, or who made it and focus first on our current debate) The religious definition: Good is what God wants (and God is Good) The humanist definition: Good is what helps my group (of course humanists, tend to include all humans, and some of them include animals that have some limited mental capacity) - the origins of this are very clear, as social beings need society to remain alive and reproduce. Thus groups that have no mechanism (like morality), to defend the needs of group will not survive. Humanist claim OBJECTIVE morality's existence on the grounds that since societies/cultures (so groups) merge into one, they inevitably come to a shared common morality, and that this morality is evident by the fact, that all moralities present in previous societies (groups) with time tend to correlate to our modern morality, thus it can be expected that the end point (which may or may not be reachable) of this process is objective morality. (Of course as a moral nihilist i have some objections against this argument, BUT! challenging a kid who knows very little about his own beliefs, by an expert, who is well practiced (or even educated) in attacking the said belief system is not a fair battle. In this regard moral nihilists are a somewhat more staunch target (at least i believe so) as they tend to come to their conclusion alone, not by the virtue of respecting some authority (be it parents, famous people, ..etc.), thus they have deeper knowledge for why they hold their beliefs.)
Really, man is "altruistic". Then why the police? No, even Paul speaks to this some 2,000 years ago; "For he is the minister of God (speaking of those in authority) to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil." Romans 13:4. Basicly, police for local criminals, armies for people like Hitler.
If "humans are inherently altruistic and moral," why does every parent everywhere have to scold and correct their children for lying, screaming, demanding, hitting, stealing, coveting, manipulating.... All children do these things, without anyone having to train them to.
Morality comes from a trait derived from natural selection; as we went down an intellectual evolutionary path, humans that hurt others and stole hurt the group as a whole, and groups that had these less "moral" members that stole and killed either died out or got rid of the members that were hurting the groups progress and ability to make food and survive. This continued through history and was passed down through generations, creating our current moral standard around that ideology. This can be seen through others species of animals having a "pack" dynamic like wolves: they have some variation of the moral code we do, and it is to not hurt members of the pack. As humans became more intelligent through the less intelligent ones making worse tools and decisions leading to their demise, the smarter and stronger humans prevailed and those genes stayed in the gene pool, and this intelligence allowed people to see that the best way to be able to eat, reproduce, and, at its core, *prevent the suffering of people* was to cooperate as a tribes, countries, and later, as a species. People have an inherent desire to prevent suffering for others because all humans are able to feel that emotion.
Michael Herron You dont make any sense. Youre saying there are "already" groups of "moral" people and less moral people come along and are banned, died off or whatever. How did these groups form to begin with? If its an evolutuonary path, then how do you get from one single thing to a group?...and more importantly..why? Wheres the point where it jumps from one single thing to two. What decided that this was beneficial from the start? And even if this was some way possible by chance, once there was two, the only way to know that not killing was beneficial would be to kill the other one. You talk about a path but you leave out the very fact that your path starts from absolutely nowhere.
@@abren5974 that's a lovely picture, and one that has zero proof. If humans evolved that way then why didn't animals? Do you believe evil exists? If something is real it would exist for all living things but animals and plants know the concept of evil. It is a construct that exists only for humans, why?
To be honest, in the beginning I'm not exactly sure about what you were saying but correct me if I'm wrong if you are saying that the members who were doing what we would now consider it morally wrong were killed because they were hurting the ability to catheter or produce food or hinder progress? If so your argument is already wrong.
"Why is that a good thing? Who said?" Easy; we said. Humans have defined what is "good" and "bad" based on what allows our species to survive. That's the response this kid was looking for.
@@jamieschurr476 The problem with your claim is it implies that if something is good or bad, it will remain that way for eternity; thus, any example where we "changed our minds" about the morality of a behavior is evidence against your claim. Thus, as an example, since slavery was acceptable during the time of Jesus (there are even passages in the Bible instructing landowners on how to properly discipline their slaves) your claim would imply that slavery is thus morally acceptable forever. But since we've changed our minds about slavery, and decided it is morally reprehensible, this demonstrates that we can (and do) shape our own definitions of "good" and "bad".
@TIV67 Playz Natural selection ;) Think about it. Our species' primary adaptation is our ability to consort with one another and to form tribes that can outcompete any prey or foe (for example, a single human cannot bring down a mammoth, but a tribe of 100 men with spears they collectively constructed can bring down a mammoth). Early tribes that exhibited no basic moral structure-- i.e. contained no admonishment not to kill, steal, cheat, etc.-- inevitably collapsed because no group can survive with widespread immorality (e.g. widespread murder, theft, etc,). Thus, through basic natural selection, tribes that outlawed murder, theft, etc. survived and outcompeted those that didn't. So being moral was adaptively advantageous for our species-- that's why people exhibit morality.
Right and wrong is not an objective truth. It is subjective to a people’s culture and human opinion. Cultures change. A long time ago, killing someone was not considered wrong, it was considered sport and one was praised for the amount of heads they collected. Is that wrong?
4:53 I’ve NEVER seen an atheist actually be that thoughtful and on a dime switch their stance and say “I think you’re right”. That absolutely floored me
Thank you Frank. I wish I was able to have a mind like yours. I love this channel and love to hear the minds of the next generation on what and how they think
I really respect the kid - love how he's putting heart and thought into his positions, but still open to changing and admitting when he might be off. It is WAY more than most of his peers will do with their golden years (hello TikTok generation).
We are sinful , all of us, by nature, selfish and inevitably wretched. But love which is from God is the learning and suffering we have to agonise about to find true meaning to life. The emotional pain we suffer and the costs we pay for living right ( which is according to our conscience which God gave us all) is what defines our charachter and hopefully, if we lived obedient to Christ, it shaped us into His image. God said he loves those he disciplines. If we accept it and surrender to Him He can do anything through us. His grace is sufficient, it is more than enough for all to have eternal hope. Thankyou Jesus.
As Christians we are ti invite Atheists to know your loving God, they are thee mission field ..and God works in them for good always. Love Dr Turek and his amazing discussions ...God bless you.
"I'm a busy guy"... yh, because hanging out with your friends is more important than finding out whether your entire world view is fundamentally flawed 😅
Death gets closer to each and every one of us, and rather than preparing for the biggest event that will EVER happen to you, you spend your time trying to disprove the God that IS your only hope the very second after you die. Seems rather foolish.
This here proves that you have to be WILLING to accept & believe Christ... I definitely see bitterness but I’m going to pray for him because he can repent of that. I’m glad he asked the questions he did & had the ears to hear Dr.Tureks answers
He thought he was going to prove you wrong and all he did was prove you right. People, we can stand strong when we know our Bible, and learn from people like Dr. Turek.
He shocked me when he said "you know what, your right" that's takes some humility
I disagree. He didn't yield the point and demure pending further consideration-- rather, he immediately jumped to argue for the non-necessity of moral categories.
@@smgale7689 you disagree with what? The man said it takes humility to say what he said. Your reply was totally irrelevant.
@@smgale7689 Agree.
@@smgale7689 No one can come to a conclusion against what they have believed easily...
It's because he is actively seeking truth
This kid is being honest with himself. We need more people like him.
Yep
On both sides of the argument.
Agreed
I think he's just giving more honor to the creation than the creator, he has the heart for God, he just doesn't know that's what it is. He sees us as people in the image of God but not wanting to see God for who he is because sin casts a veil over our eyes and until you are born again a natural man can not understand things of the spirit
Yeah we need more bias atheists.
If by nature humans are altruistic, lets get rid of the Police Department in every city and see how well it goes
The police are certainly not moral agents. They can be corrupted, or can even be murderers. Just a few days ago, a Chicago police officer was convicted of killing a black teen. And, 6 other police officers helped stall the investigation, and cover up evidence.
There needs to be more checks and balances in police departments and government agencies.
Most humans are altruistic. That is why the predators can succeed. They take advantage of those that are moral.
Indeed a LOT of televangelists are doing exactly that. Taking advantage of the gullible to line their pockets.
Not because humans are altruistic by nature, because it can be perverted even were it nature, but because the police forces are notorious for being violent, cowardly, and sometimes even unpredictable.
@@vshah1010 yes but does that mean we should get rid of the police altogether?
@John Otalvaro.... Well Frank just said that "God wrote his moral code on our hearts"...did he just "misspell" it on some people? Morality is caring about the wellbeing of each individual, family, community and ultimately the world. It has nothing to do with the supersitions of goat herders written down on papyrus between 1500 and 5,000 years ago. The fact that Frank couldn't admit that humans being good and caring about each other wasn't enough( there has to be a god commanding it or it wasn't moral) just shows how warped the man is.
I love watching intelligent thoughtful respectful people have a normal dialogue with one another.
True. This is how debate ought to be.
too bad Turek's not one of them
@@TJ-kk5zf Go have a long conversation with the person staring back at you in your bathroom mirror.
@@TJ-kk5zf if he isn’t, then all the people he has debated and even educated must also not be intelligent according to you, including myself and many others. I suppose depending on your perspective this could be true, if you’re the most intelligent person on the planet, but I doubt that you are.
@@spencergsmith do you even know what circular argument is? it's Turek's specialty. I'm a logic professor, so your petty insults are less than fleas, which you probably have
I love how people are studying their notes in the line up -
Somethin Aint Right Here it's deep like that
Taking Notes??
Lmaoooooo
And yet.... They get up there and still crash and burn in trying to oppose the simple truth of God
I
This young man was SO humble and honest. I appreciate that. He had real questions and was willing to listen and consider an opposing point of view.
Lmao Nathaniel is a big doofus
ORIGINALDOGMAN John Castro That's pretty immature dude, you should probably grow up and learn to talk about people positively.
Complex Dianetics I don't see any comments of me saying mean things about others.
Complex Dianetics I don't see any relation to how I'm a hypocrit and what you just said,
I had the feeling he didn't know who Stalin was or what he did, because the speaker tried to make a point by bringing Stalin in the discussion.
At least he is an atheist who can say "You are right"
Yes. They are very rare these days.
+Christian Philosophy Yes, it's also rare to find any scientifically-literate person who can say "you are right" to a flat-earther...and for similar reasons.
Elliot C Frank is a Christian-a well adverse and learned one.His faith makes him exceptional not his intellectual prowess-which is extraordinary.The problem atheism has is-it believes in God and hates that it does.Free will.
Elliot C Atheists own every argument theists throw at us. This video was an example of an authoritative teacher debating a brave atheist who stepped up to a mic in a room full of theists. You have to be next level intelligent to win that fight :-)
Point is: He is right. Morality is necessarily defined by an agent. If that agent is God, then it is objectively binding on all people and we have a basis for calling things good or evil. If that agent is man, then it's nothing more than personal preference, and you have no basis for calling anything good or evil. Then morality is whatever the person who has the power to enforce it wants it to be. It's as simple as that.
I live this young man’s thought process. Sadly we’re inherently not good. Jesus was very clear, there is no one good. No not one. I enjoyed this.
Humans are inherently good, bad choices is what makes human derive from what they have inherited from God, and that can start at a very young age. When you're a kid, your first lie would have probably tortured you for days, even if it was a "good" lie, now lying doesn't make me feel that way anymore, especially if it's for a "good reason" (while the truth is you should never lie and that's it). The reason for that is that through constant lying I've destroyed the consciousness that was making me dislike them. Repetitive evil deeds will kill off a good soul. But the soul was inherently good. Which is why you have no excuses on the day of Judgement, God guided you already when you were born and if you die on the wrong path, you can only blame yourself for the choices you made. Because if we do have one choice in this life, it's to listen to our consciousness.
we all have good and bad in us. look at god
Mr White, you’re saying we’re good (morally perfect) but the badness we have in us is from God? Woah, that’s extremely blasphemous... good luck on judgement day, I sincerely hope you get saved before then. Go watch some Living Waters.
@@Omariau I disagree with almost everything you said. I believe that people are born selfish. I have children and grandchildren now and I have watched them grow up. They want what they want and that is the most important thing to them. I have to teach them to share. I have taught them to care for others. When they lie for the first time it doesn't bother them. Only after I discipline them for lying do they feel bad. It is the repetitive discipline that makes them realize it was bad. Think about this, if people are inherently good why do we have a problem with stealing, lying, arson, rape, murder and wars? Why do people think they have a right to other people's possessions and property? You are right in that we have no excuse on judgment day but it is because that God set the standard and we are to selfish to abide by it.
@@heavnxbound I have no clue how you arrived to such a conclusion based on what I wrote. Keep your good luck, there's no such thing and that's not what I'll need when I stand before God.
I like that the young man is respectful. He has honest and was actually listening. Not many kids like that these days.
Or adults
He's a decent young man. I pray that he finds the Lord some day.
He has found the Lord . He needs to shut his mouth .
I pray he finds the Lord every day . 24/7.
Kevin Barton why does he need to find god? How do you know he doesn’t live a more thoughtful and caring life as is? You don’t need this belief to live a better life.
Tony Hill - oh ok . I understand. I quit my faith for you . Thanks for your concern.
Kevin Barton I didn’t imply that you should do anything. I said this person or people don’t need a belief in a god to live a great meaningful life. But it seems you may be implying that bc you are praying for someone to find something that they may not be looking for or need. Also let me ask you this....what are you praying for exactly? For god to change its mind??
That ending made me happy. I want everyone to see how powerful it is to treat non believers with respect and love. Recognize that often times when they speak bitterly about our faith it’s a cry for help. All you have to do is plant a seed. Let the watering and growing up to God.
ABSOLUTELY agree with this.
Agreed, this young man was humble and willing to listen, i'll be praying for you Nathanael!
@Paul Morgan
That was actually a demon in your mind, telling you what others say.
@Paul Morgan
Read the Gospels.
@Paul Morgan
Oral traditions were fundamental back then because 90% of people were illiterate. All the knowledge about Alexander the Great we have was written about 400 years after him, that is how it was. It does not mean that what Alexander did was not real or what Jesus did was not real.
@Paul Morgan How do you know they didnt? Do you really think that all what was written back then is known by our historians? How many writings did not survive and were lost, we dont know. Do you watch Bart Ehrman much?
Paul Morgan “Rewrites from the Old Testament... that’s called fulfilled prophecy. Go watch some Cold-Case Christianity.
That was a nice ending, instead of destroying the atheist, Turek goes and tries to open a door for the gospel message. that's loving the lost souls!
The way it should be. Our only goal is to open the door and share the message. Not grab them by the hair and pull them in.
@@Niznuts123
"Our only goal is to open the door and share the message."
OK the message rarely matches the Bible and the Bible does not match the real world. Its from ignorant men, not a god.
Books that fully support slavery and have genocidal gods are not moral books even if they were not disproved as is the case for the Bible.
Yes disproved as it describes a world we do not live in.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@Stevenson1776
OK willfully ignorant child. Only folks use that surrender reply.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@Stevenson1776 They have not. Atheism is not a religion.
@@Stevenson1776 It's simply a lack of theism. It's not a worldview. Many atheists have different worldviews.
"humans are naturally altruistic" Wow talk about someone who has never once even been in the same room as a history book.
@A Stoic's Door All of our initial natural tendencies in life are selfish.
We have to be taught repeatedly to say words like please and thank you. Yet very quickly on even if we're not taught, the first words that we know are mine and no.
When toddlers are frustrated, regardless of the environment they've grown up and, they will hit. Etc.
And if there's not a parent present to guide a child's upbringing and teach them right from wrong, they will grow up to be incredibly selfish people who think that it's okay to do whatever they want.
And empathy doesn't necessarily dictate anything about morality. For example Hitler could have been empathetic if one of the Germans in charge of the concentration camps said he was tired and exhausted from work, but nobody would look at that example and conclude that's morally good empathy.
Empathy is just relating to how somebody feels, doesn't mean anything in terms of morality.
@A Stoic's Door I think we are basically saying the same thing. Empathy can interact with morality but empathy can also occur irrespective of morality. I'm not saying they don't go hand in glove sometimes
My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive.
They can but don't always co occur.
As I said a serial killer feeling bad for another serial killer who got caught, is not by most standards a morally upstanding sentiment.
But that's still empathy occurring
Or paid attention to that book, anyway. I´ve looked at Chinese history, and the Hongwu Emperor is a terrifying example of a kid who fought his way, with some Buddhist upbringing no less, and became a terror of millions. Genghis Khan is praised for his religious tolerance, after killing 40 plus million estimated. Khan´s relatives wiped out Baghdad and its Muslim learning center, which starts looking like at more specific issues in Christianity´s ability to establish University-based culture. India. Ashoka became a Buddhist emperor after brutal warring. Yet, Islam conquered many part of India, and Hinduism´s caste system is brutal overall. Africans like the Zulus conquered, and enslaved, as did the Iroquois Nation. Sacagawea had been enslaved by other Native Ams. Cabeza de Vaca had an African slave, and his small group of survivors were enslaved by Native Ams, until he/they escaped and he started healing.
The end was the best. It is interesting how people like to confront the Bible without reading the Bible first. How can I talk about a book before reading this book?
lucas melo
That’s the most annoying thing.
All opinions without any facts
Same could be said for Christians...
Texas chainsaw Murder jesus what book for you atheists? Science books? Cause we are forced to read those and be taught lies...
I agree with you Lucas melo. And It's rather unfortunate when people have read the book and end up arguing against the book.
Definitely read the Bible, all of it. It’s the easiest way to see problems with Christianity. And at the same time, that goes both ways. Don’t refute facts which are inconvenient to religion or ignore science, then profess to have an informed opinion.
I pray that kid opened his heart and saw the light and that God led him to the answers that he need to see...like we all do. God bless him and us all.
Frank does a great job of making the young man actually think about why he believes what he believes. As Frank reveals the confusion in the young man's thinking, the young man becomes correspondingly less and less confident. Interesting how confident we can be in unchallenged thinking. Very human.
I agree. Well said.
long long discussions about objective moral values.....just utterly pointless. Why does dr Turek not actually provides some evidence that his objective moral values actually exist...?
ApaX1981
That's a poor rebuttal. The proof is already given in the Bible. Not only that, but it's evidence is obvious throughout human history, with the word of God as our guiding light.
It just shows that man is capable of evil with or without believing in a God. This point agrees with the Bible.
So what if i seek out evil? Why am I wrong? Imagine each of 4 Billion humans having their own opinion on whats right and wrong, who is the ultimate authority then? I dont know about you, but I'd put my faith in a person who rose from the dead.
So if there's no absolute morality, everything is permissible, right? What's wrong with a bag of atoms stabbing another bag of atoms?
“I’m a busy person”
That response shows me that he isn’t after the truth. One can never be too busy to consume truth.
Amen brother. This is the ultimate truth Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Moral truth
if its a book that frank turek is recommending, it most likely contains no truth, probably nothing but bald assertions, claims with no evidence, typical preachy sermon garbage us atheists are all too sick of hearing and reading. Christians all sound the same after a little while
@@randommanny7659 I've always wondered the context of 25:11-12. What's it truly mean? That there should be punishment for a reaction that isnt warranted by the crime?
@@oneadamtwelve86 kind of sounds like your unwilling to read it and preaching to others not to read it. Why? Isn't it better to hear both sides? Are you concerned with reading something that may have you questioning your opinions?
@@7EiamJ7 I have probably read and listened to more apologetics than most christians have. Also, i used to swallow it up when I was a christian too. Since I gave up religion I have been fascinated with the theism atheism debate. Also since that day I have never once heard a theist make one single argument for the existence of any gods that could stand up to any scrutiny. Every single one fails when you start questioning it. When the theist notices this they usually say something like, well you gotta have faith.
And no I am not scared of reading things that question my beliefs. I do it all the time. But religious material has never made me question my beliefs. Except to wonder how so many grown adults can hold such outrageous beliefs with no evidence and not even notice it
Without a standard for good, there is no evil. For evil is the condition which we call the absence of good.
xenoranger79 technically there is only 2 types of good... one is selfless (Sacrifice self for others, Gods way) and selfish ( sacrifice others for self), thats it... you cannot be both, but usually selfish people pretend to be good so they can be bad...
AT Games so what do you call situations where everyone benefits?
Nucularburrito2 a normal situation... i guess lol, its not about what you call it, its about the truth, and truth is there are 2 sides, thats it... that could be a situation that doesn’t pick a side necessarily i guess idk, its very complicated but truth is that there is 2 sides to it all!
AT Games so it's like how a Coin can land on its side. Doesn't that mean there is 3 sides? Sacrificing yourself, Sacrificing others and sacrificing no one. Continuing with the coin analogy there would also be the neither outcome of Sacrificing everyone.
So those "2 truth's" can themselves turn into 4 because they are neither required nor mutually exclusive. And there would also be degree's of all of these
For example image these gametheory payouts (You/Other)
2/1
4/0
-1/3
Assuming you pick a payment which one should you pick?
Top path does good to the most people but doesn't do as much as possible for anyone
Middle path has the highest total payout but doesn't help anyone besides yourself
Bottom path helps others the most but has the lowest total payout.
Of those 3 options which would be the best to take? A Utilitarionist would take the middle path. Someone that uses rules that always apply would take the top path. Someone that only cares about others would take the bottom path.
Nucularburrito2 i think you missed the point, sure nothing can happen of any moral truths, but that doesnt mean there isnt a moral truth.
Its really important to simply understand, not comprehend, just to witness the difference and to choose, within yourself,
the way of selflessness, sacrificing the self for others,
The way of selfishness, sacrificing others for the self,
There are also those suck in between, lost, incapable of choosing, even if they wanted to, they couldnt be good, cause led astray.
Plus out of all this, there are those wanting to be evil but pretending to do good, etc etc its not that simple lol numbers cannot explain this truth, not possible to understand it the way you seek to grasp it cause that simply isnt with the truth... i think...
Frank is a warrior for Christ! Great job brother. Much love for him, round of applause! Praise the Lord! 🙏💖✝️
Humans are inherently able to know what is good and what is wrong because we are created by God and in His image. Romans 2:14-15 proves that the law is written in our hearts.
Most people do not want to believe the existence of God because it makes us aware that we have to face the reality of our sin. But the problem most people don't want to be accountable for their actions.
Because saying an athority figure told you to do it is a great way to take responsibility.
Real cleaver.
Also what makes God an athority figure? What's so special about his opinion?
hellotychelle yes god each person a conscience
Ryan A I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
Greg Letter history is told from eye witness testimony, all history is told from eye witness testimony, the last part of of your comment is in-comprehensive , you started rambling giving you so called explain on how a sovereign god could be evil
Pretty sure the cave man, (the people that were way way waaaay before religion) worked out real quick murdering his own tribe wasn't a good idea.
An intelligent earnest young guy who is seeking the truth. God bless you Frank
1:39
“There are situations where humans will not be caring for one another”.
Literally all of human history wrapped up in one sentence.
This is an untrue and dark perception of human history. My parents sacrificed and cared for me for two decades. Yet this sentence has zero room in your interpretation of history. Pull you head out.
Justin Aeneas
One example of two people being caring to one person does not disprove the rest of history.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 yes obviously but the original commentator did say ‘all of human history’
@@lets_wrapitup he was making a joke about how destructive and chaotic human history is. No need to take it so personally
@@stardino9475 I didn’t take it personally?
Frank's got so much patience. I would be so confused trying to talk with the guy at the mic.
Yeah sometimes it's hard to debate people like this because they usually are so stuck in their bubble, they have no real evidence to back it up but they think everything they say is evidence and if you don't counter everything then they think they got you
@@Supermonkeyfun the irony in your comment is outstanding.....
@@Supermonkeyfun frank provided 0 evidence to his point, morals arent objective, even if they were theres no connection to any deity. You cant prove something with itself. Example= "hey this book says im the fastest man alive" wheres the proof? "Its written in the book" 10/10 logic
@@belphemmore3802 no you simply lack understanding, what makes killing wrong? What makes stealing wrong? Why do we have a moral compass which tells us to not do those things? If morals were subjective then we wouldn't need laws, if someone thinks it's ok to murder it's ok to murder? If someone thinks it's ok to rape then it's ok to rape because they think it's ok?
@@Supermonkeyfun i simply lack understanding? ok, law enforcement was put in place so people didnt commit what we as a society deem a "crime". This establishment would not need to be in place if we all shared a moral standard, you think robbing, rape and killing is wrong right?? if your morals were objective then so would everyone else, therefore having law enforcement would be redundant as no person would commit crimes.
the fact that we are both debating morals and have different morals proves that morality is subjective and differs from person to person.
im gonna give you an example and make it easy for you to understand=
i will assume you think slavery is wrong, right?? i also think that the ownership, subjugation, and abuse of another life is wrong.. but now lets skip back 150 years.. do you think people thought the same way? was slavery immoral? if you have any sort of history knowledge then you'd know of the civil war and the countless societies that thrived off of slavery (bible has slavery too) but wait a minute.... SLAVERY IS WRONG!! SO WHY WAS IT ONLY ABOLISHED 150 YEARS AGO?? you might ask... because people's morals change by society, and this change only came about recently... you were taught to be compassionate and to hold no prejudice towards others based on race or economic standards, this wasnt the case before which is why people grew up with resentment towards blacks..
another example would be a kid growing up with poor parents or parents that have substance abuse issues or kids that get abused themselves.. these kids grow up in neglected households, the streets, or in slums, and grow to make up the majority of crimes, why? because they learned it from their environment. (there's countless data to back this up)
i think you lack the capacity to see what objectivity means, math is objective, the laws of gravity is objective.... morals arent, no matter where you are born gravity will work the same, the same isnt true for your morals. your own statement provides me with the proof to show that morals are subjective
""""""If someone thinks it's ok to rape then it's ok to rape because they think it's ok?"""" the fact that you aknowledge that another individual is capable of thinking that rape is ok proves that morals are subjective, objective morals would by definition prohibit anyone from mistaking "good" from "evil"
Humans are inherently good and altruistic? Is he nuts?
yes
Ross Cicero he’s not nuts but he has been sold a pup. It’s a popular atheist theory that was invented to plug a gaping hole in their story. I agree. Humans are not inherently good or altruistic. Far from it. Sure, they’re all capable of goodness and altruism equally as much as they’re all capable of selfishness and violence. Inherently good? I don’t think so.
So god is inherently good and altruistic? Are you nuts?
Humans are naturally good. I don’t see any little children hating people, or wanting to kill people, or targeting someone in order to hurt them in any way shape or form... Children are taught these things.
yeah I guess he really is a good person. I know humans are evil because I see so much evil in myself. We seem to perceive others based on how we perceive ourselves.
Yeah, we’re SO confident that it’s just inherent to care about and take care of one another, that we lock our doors at night so that no one who “cares about us” can come in.
Refreshing to see an actual dialogue between an Atheist and Christian
Naw man, it is not. Go see a debate between Turek and Hitchens
@Jaden Boisrond Yeah most atheists I debate with are filled with so much hate.
@@TheOne-Aslan I sometimes wonder if they don't believe in God and hate him so much then why even bother searching up videos about God and wasting time debating with christians telling them they're wrong?🤔
@@jamesmccloud7535 Because Satan has filled their mind with so much hatred that their only action is to bring others down with them. Poor things they are.
@Jaden Boisrond If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.
If morality is objective and absolute, Zeus must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, Zeus must exist.
Argument from morality is flawed, because even if objective morality exists, you still have no proof for premise "If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist." All we can say is objective morality exist and we don't know why and how. God is not proven there.
This young brother is a genuine lad. God bless him.
MASSIVE RESPECT to this young man.... At 4:53 my respect for him went through the roof. 👏
The young man was smart, humble and honest. If Jesus touches his heart his mind would be enlightened. Ending is superb. Inspiring ending.
@Paul Morgan Why are you assuming he's American?
@Paul Morgan Why is it bad to be "obsessed" with Jesus? Our foundations were on Judeo-Christian values.
@Paul Morgan Are you seriously calling Jesus fictional? Even if you don't believe in God, Jesus was an actual historical figure.
@Paul Morgan Even if God wasn't real and Christianity is a hoax, even cold hard atheist scholars say that Jesus' historical existence is undeniable. Whether he is the Son of God or not, his existence is undeniable.
If Jesus touches his heart, his mind would be enlightened? So it's Jesus' fault that he's an atheist?
I liked how Nathaniel expressed himself but was still kind and open to dialogue. God bless him 🥰
God Bless You all. All Glory Honor Praise Worship and Thanksgiving to God. Jesus is King. THANK YOU GOD FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THANK YOU JESUS FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THANK YOU HOLY SPIRIT FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I LOVE YOU GOD WITH ALL MY HEART, SOUL, MIND AND STRENGTH
An argument against his argument would be. “Only I need to survive during my time. Why should I care about a future I am not it?”
You shouldn’t care. I’m arguing with my friend about Christianity id be happy to have a talk about the moral argument if you’d like to. 678 787 2137
It’s 2138 not 2137
The respect between each other is great. This is what a debates needs to be like.
This man is about to believe. Thank you Jesus. You can tell he just wants to understand.
Thank you Frank for showing non believers their choosing not to believe what truthful shows the desire of their flesh and bad habits..God bless you all!!NZ Wellington Porirua Loves you all
I love that kid! God bless you frank. So gracious in the dialogue.
I was too distracted by the kid in line rehearsing his argument
4:52 is a moment that we ALL need to be willing to come to when we follow the evidence where it leads! Respect this man for being wiling to admit his change in thought publicly!
God Bless Turek, please continue to pray for him and all good Biblical Christian Apologists... We sorely need them in the world today.
I love how everyone comes to ask questions thinking “yo I got this” soon to realize. I guess I better read his book.
A wary mind can see he is a con artist.
Why is God good?
Why is God's will good?
Why is being created good?
Why is being given life good?
You people act like you have some superior and subliminal "anchor" to deciding morality,
but in reality you are just refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word that people decided when they attempted to communicate a concept: which was empathy and social productivity.
You cant answer your own questions, without boiling down to divine dictatorship.
@@applecore8978 morality doesn’t exist if there’s no ultimate ground factor. If is based on social cultural relativism then morality is nothing but an illusion. And if God doesn’t exist then free will is unreal and therefore morality has no value, what makes morality so beautiful is the ability to choose to be good.
He put up an impressive fight. I can easily see how people get confused about how they justify what they do. But when it all comes to light, atheists do forcefully insist they're the most logical. But without a logical foundation for fundamental issues, they actually end up just being hypocrites.
What's scary is they usually don't know it!
What's amazing is how many fundamental issues they must be ignorant of just to maintain their ignorance.
Because it really does take an objective force beyond nature to establish the things we take for granted in life, morality, physics, logic, science... You name it.
It's funny, if you think about it, because with God, reality can be neatly and categorically laid out from beginning to end, up and down, side to side, everything in a logical progression to explain what we're all here to witness.
The origin of all must be infinite, powerful, intelligent, personal, etc...
Try asking an atheist or secularist of any sort to do the same.
To date, I have yet to see anything they have to say that flows, is sound and authoritative.
"The big bang happened and all the scientist's agree!"
That sounds desperate, at best, to me. I'd love to meet the scientist/s and see the actual equipment they used to make that belief magically flip flop into a fact...
The point is...
Eventually, people have to put their faith in someone!
God is just a better candidate when it comes to the truth about this particular creation.
What reason is there to assert that it takes an objective force outside of nature to establish anything? On what grounds to you assert that something infinite, powerful, intelligent and personal is required? This makes zero sense to me and seems to have no basis. You seem to think atheists believe in the Big Bang in the way you believe in a god. I just think that it’s the most well evidenced and coherent explanation so far and if new evidence leads to new models in the future so be it. I have no vested interest in finding evidence for the things I believe but rather will follow the evidence where it leads - unlike theists. I don’t need to have ‘faith’ in what scientists tell me, I suspect that they know what they are talking about since science makes accurate predictions and develops awesome technologies. Magic and mythology on the other hand don’t do anything of the sort.
@@doubriewotsit4090
Gosh.. are you serious?
How can any objectivity exist without an objective external force?
How can subjectivity create an objective reality? That's illogical.
If all of creation did not result from objectivity, then everything had to be subjective.
This means nothing is "true"... all the laws of physics, maths and everything is simply the result of personal interpretation. This means the tools you trust to prove God is not True are not true in the first place.
This includes yourself.
How can your mind be trusted to make truth statements when truth doesn't even exist?
This is the first step to insanity.
How can you prove TRUE=TRUE is a true statement?
Why is that true? What IS truth in a subjective reality?
Absolute truth has to be the superstructure for ALL matter.
Outside of objective truth, there IS NO truth... anywhere.
John C So why go on about ‘truth’. It’s just what is. Reality. The laws of physics etc are not the result of anything they are simply observations we have made about the nature of the universe around us that have massive predictive power. They seem to be correct because so far they haven’t failed us. If they were to fail, they’d have to be revised. So what?
I can trust my observations and interpretations of reality to as much extent as they continue to be a reliable way to make predictions. It’s not about being trusted to make truth statements. It’s about the best observations of reality we have as an individual and collectively. The more our observations agree and are reliable the more useful they are to us. That’s all.
What’s ‘trusted to make truth claims’ about? No one is ‘trusted to make truth claims’. We each state things as we see it from the evidence around us. Usually these line up pretty well with each other. Not always, but what you gonna do?
@@doubriewotsit4090
I am going to trust God.
Whilst I agree with you on many things, our perspectives are different.
It is not the laws of physics that would need revising.. it is OUR understanding of those laws that needs revising. You may have meant to say the same thing, but really, you didn't..and that is significant.
For before man even walked on the earth, these laws were functioning perfectly.
So if the natural mind was not there in the beginning, it could have no part in the cause of all of nature. Therefore one thing is CERTAIN is that we are not creators of creation.
Wherefore we ought to expression more humility towards Him that was the cause of all of nature.
John C John C Regarding laws of physics that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Reality is just what reality is and the ‘laws’ bit is just us making sense of it. Physical reality is what it is before during and after human existence.
We are a complete irrelevance.
I just can’t fathom how and why you conclude there is some agent that decided to create. I cannot follow that leap. There is absolutely nothing to suggest it.
Props to him for at least saying that he MIGHT be right. This is a conversation as opposed to Atheists screeching "if god real y bad thing hapen?"
😭🤣
You know what i like about these conversations. They’re here to learn & evolve !! They’re not trying to prove their point. Great Convo Sir 😇
"Man is caring and altruistic. Just as it has been for our history" does that mean slavery (also been around for all our history and up until the last few hundred years has been accepted) so slavery must be good if you care about your slave
Grant Shearer are you actually using that example knowing that Christianity condones slavery and has been used to justify through out history??
Lol back then slave was “good” in the name of god because he said it’s ok. You’re not making your case son.
Grant Shearer don't forget you have to take care of your slave
@@eldermikedavis9518 this is how he came about , slavery would be ok on the exception of treating them ok... Given thats not what made slavery in bible times acceptible or solely for that reason
But before i continue i want to establish the idea of chattel slavery and how it differs from bible times slavery, yes its very evident how different they are and how slavery from the past few centuries have been redefined to be understood that way instead of what it really is or was.
For example slavery that we all know of consist of slaves being stolen and sold and robbed in sense from their rights(god given rights by force). When the bible clearly states
Exodus 21 16
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
This of course can be read in context but its evident that anyone who steal a man and sell him is to be punished. So with that we can already see the difference of slavery from bible times and slavery from the past centuries.
Now let us address why slavery was growing and the purpose of it in bible times.
Most of the slavery was due to a couple purposes, some for economic reasons, some due to war and some like i said to pay of a debt. As you might already be familiar, slaves as well as masters were given rights and rules for both individuals. The master was to dicipline his slave but for valid reasons....he couldnt just throw a tantrum and start wooping his slave for no reason.
And the slave were to serve their masters for 7 years, given if they voluntarily offered themselves to begin with( as you are aware chattel slavery had no voluntary action needed, they were just stolen and yea)
During this times, it was convinient for the ones that needed a place to stay, say maybe even help to take care of their families or like i said to pay of a debt. Hence they were provided for those things until their time was up. Pretty neat eh?
Many objections to this come from the beatings of slaves but be very careful on those accusations. Since even prisons have the authority to dicipline their inmates for not following orders and or being stiff necked, and im sure parents have given the belt to a kid or two to get a point across but lets not assume so as to injure them badly.
So i would like to point out this verse in order to adress that part
Exodus 21 20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Now you can always read this in context again so as to see for yourselves that their is not tampering here...but note that it says if one strikes their slave and he or she dies, that owner is to be avenged(god doesnt take lightly these things)
But it says if after a day or two he or she is ok and well then of course the master shall not be avenged for the slave is his money, property(or any other word that any translation wants to put there)
Note: Now you would have to use your head to get an idea of how hard the master would have to hit his slave with that rod that would allow the slave to be ok and well at a maximum of two days after being strucked. Heavy hits can take alot too heal and can render a person to struggle to move. So i leave that to you guys.
So these are just examples of why slavery was a practiced thing and how it differs completely from the slavery we are all too familiar with....
Given our economy nowadays and the message that christ gives, puts on in circumstances where slavery today is not neccesary as well as not the way to go when it comes to treating each others as loving neighbor's.
In the new Testament there were still accounts of slavery for example
Ephesians 6 5 Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b]with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man,8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free.9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master[c] and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
So of course this lays out what a servant ought to behave and act as with his master and of course how the master how he ought to remember that he who is the master of all is the one who even allows for them to have -master- i mean slaves in the first place and such a god as he treats them they ought to treat their slaves as well, not to treat their slaves as cruel.
So to summarize slavery was used as a last resort. Given circumstances specially here in america it is not a thing that should be considered and on the side that it should not be thought of as dark as some make it out to be, though now adays we even have paper contracts amongs companies and employers lol and like i said even pleas when it comes to a case of laws.
Its cool how slavery when we know how to organize ourselves and learn how to treat others can render slavery as not needed
@@ispd123 it was never condones but regulated by means for bankrupt people to find a way to live. With and throughout god from what it seems
He has no foundation for his claims
Elliot C
The foundation comes from an evolutionary byproduct that aids in survival. We are inherently moral because we're social creatures that depend on each other. this dependant nature creates relationships that in turn creates the love one feels for it's species. humans aren't the only animal with this evolutionary trait, it's found throughout all social creatures, it's a natural reaction amongst social beings that depend on each other. you're trying to stick a god where it isn't needed, if you need a god to be moral then you are not moral.
Because this is an imperfect world. Anything else?
King Koopa. I think the point is that you can't really say objectively why some action is objectively morally right or wrong unless there is a God. You can say that evolution is the reason why we behave a certain way, but if you look at other animals(say Cheetah's for example), there evolution tells them to hunt and kill other animals for food. It's all about survival for some animals. By your worldview, some humans(say psychopaths for example), have no moral sense and may murder someone. This would be due to their genetics right? But we would say what he did was still wrong. Why is there such a thing as objevtive morality? If you are an athesit/naturalist/materialist, then the best explanation is that morality is not even a thing. Just some concept we made up about how most of us typically behave. And there is no such thing as right and wrong. DNA just is and we dance to its music. However, this view also presents a problem because it gives us no reason to believe we have free will. And so if our DNA controls everything, this would also include our beliefs. And so nothing you believed to be true you could know for sure because you wouldn't be deciding your beliefs.
+John Locke
Same logic can be applied to god unless you are special pleading.
also as for the god explanation, you have not yet address the euthyphro problem.
“I’m a busy person” lol 😂 Athiest dude has read so many books already don’t want to bother adding one. I love that end deal they concluded into.
Frank is very gracious and patience - basically allowing this thoughtful student to understand his own opinions
This is one of my favorite videos from Dr. Turek. He masterfully dismantles how ludicrous atheism is. Using science to explain science is circular reasoning. Like a rat stuck in a maze.
Stalins first impression is to help??? Did he go to school on the moon? Or maybe at satans feet? Stalin makes hitler look like an altar boy.
And unless the kid is psychic, how would he presume to know Stalin's innermost thoughts?
The older I get, the wiser I become. Respectful kid, but he just couldn't hang with this level of intellect. God Bless.
Very humble guy. Love to see thoughtful discussions on eternal matters.
The phrase "intent is prior to content" comes to mind towards the end of this discussion. When Frank asks the student "if Christianity was true would you become a Christian?" the students responds yes, but when Frank asks the student to read a book that might corroborate that the student declines and clearly shows his hand. His intent was not about discovering if Christianity was true or not, but to try and prove why it's not true b/c he had already made up in his mind that it wasn't true. Hope he reads the book.
You are lacking in your reasoning here.
There are thousands of worldviews with books about them that potentially could be true. This student has most likely already heard many Christian apologetics arguments and found them lacking. Why put serious effort in something that is highly unlikely to yield results?
Would you read the books on Hindu, Bhaal cult, Minoan cult, Native American religions etc etc etc to discover their truths?
Why expect others to make a special exception for Christianity? Your religion is no more special than the thousands of others out there.
killer4hire Turns out you are lacking in your reasoning my friend.
"This student has most likely already heard many Christian apologetics arguments and found them lacking."
Based on his responses he CLEARLY hasn't, and even if he had heard them he doesn't know what's in the book. That is evident in the fact that he clearly couldn't defend his position OR argue against Franks. He was arguing in what is known as a 'vicious circle'. So no, he is not informed on the arguments or even the basic tenets of logic. Arguing in a circle that way is a blatant logical fallacy.
"Why put serious effort in something that is highly unlikely to yield results?"
That statement is at the very least extremely ignorant considering if Christianity is true and God does exist that would be the most important piece of knowledge you could ever receive precisely b/c your entire ETERNAL existence depends on it. That is NOT a trivial matter.
"Would you read the books on Hindu, Baal cult, Minoan cult, Native American religions etc etc etc to discover their truths?"
I wouldn't have to b/c Christianity is separate from all other religions in many different ways. Most if not all other religions are 'works-based' religions, Christianity is not. Christ came and is the bridge that connects the great chasm between our fallen race and a holy God. Christianity is also separate in the fact that it most corresponds to reality on many different levels.
"Why expect others to make a special exception for Christianity?"
I'm not and I don't know who is. If you are going to DEBATE Christianity at least know what it is about. Frank didn't force him to walk to the mic and debate, that was the students decision. So your claim is incorrect.
'Your religion is no more special than the thousands of others out there."
That's your opinion, but I think I already started to show why that is clearly not the case.
TH-cam 81, must have him skip over the slavery bit.
@@killer4hire I'd put money on his not having read any books of Christian apologetics! and furthermore, many of us Christians have studied a lot of other world religions. I did this in high school, I devoured everything I could get on Hinduism and Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc. But I'm also a prolific reader. I'd also bet this young man hasn't read these books either. And if he had studied much history, he wouldn't sound so confident about the morality of mankind!
From a psychological and neurological standpoint...
Humans remember bad experiences more than pleasant experiences cos that helps protect them from future danger.
That's reinforces the fact that humans look out for themselves and are inherently selfish, not altruistic.
Really?
Howso?
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
@@piercemchugh4509 Both experiences are registered by your brain, and used to make decision in the future. That's why you know you should not put your hand in fire, or that sex feels good.
@@elitesam7789 What does any of your examples have to do with selfishness? It is not selfish to learn. Intelligence is not the same thing as selfishness.
@@piercemchugh4509 The registered intelligence makes the average human (instinctively) look after themselves before they step in for anyone. Because they would rather not register that pain again. That's where the selfish part comes in.
@@elitesam7789
1. That is a very uncharitable and one sided definition of "selfish."
2. And yet people clearly do often have the capability to do things against their own health and well being to help others despite the consequences, so you cannot just eliminate that just as powerful feeling of empathy and altruism.
You choose to look at one side of the coin, award it dominance for no reason, and ignore the other side of the coin completely. Plenty of people die for others, even strangers. Parents are willing to die for their kids and loved ones.
His foundation is from an is. That's logically fallacious. His logical fallacy is the is-ought fallacy. Just because something is this way, that doesn't follow logically that therefore it is how it ought to be.
But at least he was able to admit that he was wrong.
Actually the is-ought distinction applies to all moral systems, including theistic ones. If it is the case that God says it's good to do X, that doesn't make it the case that you ought to.
@@superdog797 Yeah yeah that Euthyphro dilemma again. It’s not just because he commands it that makes it good. But there must be a source of good. Something isn’t just good because God commands it’s good if he himself is the standard of what it means to be good. And to be the standard of good one must actually understand what morality is
@@chaosinorder9685 The point is that your critique of morality on the basis of the is-ought distinction hurts theists just as much as it hurts secular systems of morals. It doesn't help your case and therefore is an irrelevant criticism in the context of a moral discussion couched between theism and atheism.
If you simply define "morality" or "goodness" as God and then by force of will refuse to consider any other proposition then there's no point in having a discussion. All you've done is arbitrarily select a definition of morality that is _precisely_ the point of contention in the context of a discussion on the question of "What is good? What is moral? How should God fit into the picture, if at all?"
Because morality exists _within_ the mind and because it is _necessarily_ tied to subjective states of emotion and sensation, there is always and forever a _necessarily subjective_ element to any form of morality you consider. If you try to get out of it by just defining the word "God" as "goodness" or "morality" then you haven't actually solved the problem - you've just used language to obscure the nature of the philosophical problem. God is a mind, and therefore, if God has moral sentiments, and those moral sentiments are what you call morality, then you have morality - but, obviously, it's still subjective.
Your argument is tantamount to saying "it is a fact that God is goodness and morality, therefore, any system of morals that contradicts or doesn't acknowledge this is not a coherent moral system, and furthermore, it is logically consequential that atheism cannot be moral." Well, that's not an argument. That's just a self-declaration of victory. Secular moral systems arbitrarily based on notions of suffering and happiness are the same exact thing as theistic moral systems arbitrarily based on God as "goodness" and "morality" - one is not _logically_ superior to the other, and therefore your critique that there is a _logical_ problem with the interlocutor's position (but implicitly not your _own_ ) is irrelevant. It doesn't _progress_ the debate at all and is effectively a tu quoque fallacy.
How many are watching not only for the cross examination but learning how to dialogue with respect and how to communicate and argue without anger and resentments.
He seems a nice, well brought up kid. I hope we see him one day on the other side. I have hope for him.
@Jack Of All Trades Oh wow! Really? Well I'll just abandon my faith on the basis of a TH-cam comment, because after all, you're 56!!!!
@Jack Of All Trades With all due respect, I just don't understand why any non believer wishes to post comments rubbishing someone's deeply held beliefs. A TH-cam comment section is not the place for a debate on the existence of God or the inerrancy of the Bible, if that is what you were after. You must know that yes?
As for your age or background, it means little to me. You won't be the first to lose your faith. Many do and many return to it again. I was raised protestant, went to Sunday school, did my scripture exams, (non of the gimmicky nonsense I see in these youth groups in the US today,) and drifted into unbelief in my twenties. My love of the Bible was not lost though and I continued to read it and study it throughout my period of unbelief, which lasted nearly two decades. Now, I am back home where I belong and it still strikes me just how mean spirited and arrogant atheists can be, I thought that even when I was one!
You judge yourself able to tell me what truth is, even the most high profile, learned atheists of, (in all probability,) a far greater intellect than you don't presume to *know* whether there is definitely no God. It's a claim you just can't make!
So my question to you is this, what did you hope your comment would achieve? I'm genuinely curious.
@Jack Of All Trades well with your background, having spent so long as a Christian and knowing so much more than me apparently, you would know that it's sin not unbelief that sends you to Hell, but whatever.
You didn't really answer the question and are still doing that thing where you try and talk about what you know to be true rather than what you believe. That's the arrogance I was talking about. I know that I could be wrong, I don't believe I am, but I know I could be. You won't even countenance that you could be. Your comment was churlish, it made you seem arrogant and mean spirited and achieved nothing. If persuading ppl to your view is your aim, you need to up your game.
@UCdNbl15HIFTb_0ePUJFykAQ Jack Of All Trades you should know that whether you go to Hell because of sin or rejection of Jesus is a hotly debated issue amongst various denominations. The idea that you think you are correct when you quote bible verses is pretty funny, you are an atheist trying to argue an opposing Christian theological viewpoint. Oh the irony. I could argue my viewpoint and quote verses too but that would be absurd in this context.
Secondly, I don't believe in a young earth or a literal creation story, you don't know what I believe.
Third, you're such a simplistic thinker. You think Georges Lemaitre didn't use his mind? Perhaps you think you're cleverer than him right? I mean what a dullard he must've been eh, believing in God as he did. You are obviously an intellectual giant yes??!😂 If only he could have benefitted from the wisdom of someone like you!
But seriously, I can hardly believe you're 65, you talk like a teenager. You're a patronising tosser to boot. Btw, I didn't read your second comment, I couldn't be arsed. *Definitely* can't be arsed to read any reply to this either. Laters.
@Jack Of All Trades you're a bore.
no human invented wrong from right, and suddenly everybody accepted.
It's an instinct, given from God, that's something an animal doesn't have. An animals instinct is live and reproduce as much as possible, my theory is that they don't have a soul like we do, and our soul (what gives us feelings, love, envy, hate)
is evidently seen through humanity.
*no human invented wrong from right, and suddenly everybody accepted.*
Right and wrong are ideals that conform to human well being. Harming the well being of others is considered "wrong", and improving well being is "right".
*It's an instinct, given from God, that's something an animal doesn't have.*
How do you know it was given to us by God? Why do you need to invoke God to understand morality? Morality isn't that hard to understand once you understand how we go about making moral determinations.
*my theory is that [other animals] don't have a soul like we do*
That's nice. How did you come to this "theory?" How did you even determine that humans have a soul? What exactly is this soul that you speak of?
*and our soul (what gives us feelings, love, envy, hate) is evidently seen through humanity.*
Have you ever studied, or interacted, with Chimps or Bonobos? Both are the closest, non-human, living relatives of humans. Chimps will engage in wars with other groups of chimps, and are even known to kill one another inside their own group. Bonobos are quite the opposite, and are quite loving, and will regularly exchange sex.
In short, moral behavior can be observed in other species, as can these emotions that you seem to think other animals are deprived of.
*****
*atheism is just sophistry, nothing else*
I doubt that. Atheism at it's core is simply skepticism towards the claim that any deities exist, and does not need to claim that god(s) don't exist.
*Whether you convince yourself that you won't be held accountable or not; we'll all give account for our lives to God & we don't lose anything by living with this conviction*
How do you know this is actually true? Why do you trust that the words from a book are true when there is no way to empirically verify this claim?
As for the claim that "we don't lose anything by living with this conviction", you're simply wrong. What you lose is your intellectual honesty. You lose part of your humanity by believing that you can just ask Jesus to forgive you for the harm you do to others, rather than working to correct the harm you've caused.
*but we'd lose immensely if we live presuming atheism is true & it turns out to be false.*
How do you know this? How do you know that God doesn't care about intellectual honesty? How do you know that God doesn't hate Christians, and punishes them for believing their nonsense?
*We don't get Being from ourselves;*
What the hell does this mean? I can't make sense of this.
*it is therefore logically necessary for there to be a 'necessary being' that is both 1st cause & the foundation in which all other beings depend.*
Perhaps, but it doesn't follow that this first cause must be your God, or that this first cause even exists anymore.
*It's also necessary for there to be an immaterial cause of the universe because it began & all that begins has a cause.*
How do you know this? What we have experience for is material things having material, and efficient, causes. How does something like the universe have a material, or efficient, cause when there is no material? What does cause mean if cosmologists are right and there was no time?
*You wouldn't feel things are unjust & bad if you didn't have an idea of justice & goodness.*
This is just a tautology. Justice, and goodness, are subjective concepts, and require subjective values in order evaluate.
*They're immaterial realities, just like numbers.*
If you want to convince me that Platonism is true, then you have an awful lot of work to do. Numbers are concepts. Concepts exist because there are brains to conceive them.
*That's why they're so universal across our species.*
As humans we've all virtually clones of one another. We all have the same brain structure, and we have the ability to create, and transmit, concepts between one another. I don't need to invoke the "immaterial" to explain these things...
If morals are an instinct given from God, are you suggesting that God only gives this instinct to those who believe in him?
'animal doesn't have'
That's a very big claim.
Do you know that Elephant, Kangaroo and many other animals have stronger family bonds than us humans? Within a species, most animals are very kind to one another: wolves sharing food, bird stay in herds, fish turning female from male to give birth, and many other instances.
It's just that they have to kill different animal for them to survive, and we can explain that by the 'food chain' in biology. Prove to me this is immoral for animals. Or we are given the privilege to kill whatever non-human we want, but animals don't have the right to.
'they don't have a soul'
Pretty sure you don't own any animal, and never seen animals in real life for weeks to see how they function.
WeAreTheLight you must be a robot just reacting to stimulus then. Like Dawkins said “dancing to DNA’s music.” And if you are a product of a MINDLESS, unguided process(evolution), why should I believe you or even what you say? Why should I believe a mindless ape’s opinion? Btw, you want some of my banana? Lol!
OBVIOUSLY that college kid is NOT a parent. A 10 minute session babysitting a 2 year old would SMASH his argument of humans being altruistic and caring...😂😂😂
Remember when people where capable of having a conversation like this?
I think I would have asked him when he has ever observed humanity, on the whole, throughout history, displaying altruism over selfishness.
Humans are inherently good and altruistic?
Does this guy live on planet Earth?
@Paul Morgan yes the God of the Bible is pure, good and perfect.
But for the sake of the argument, let me agree with you and say that God and a monster and bad.
That does not take away from the fact that humans are inherently not good, not altruistic and selfish, capable to do the most horrible things.
@Paul Morgan yes. You are the first human being that lives in a house without doors (since no one is ever going to harm you hence you dont need to protect yourself and those around you), you don't even need to work because people are so good that they will always take care of you, never be afraid of being robbed because human beings are good and they will never do that to you.
We have millions of cases of rape, homicide et al but they only exist in my mind, l know that's now reality since human beings are awesome.
Thank God, you live in a world where every human beings are good and l am the only person on the planet that thinks that human beings are bad.
I just please hope that one day if someone in your family gets hurt/raped/murdered you think about how wonderful and how altruistic people are.
@Paul Morgan none. Because we live in a planet where injustice, sin(which is an invention) , rape, death (more inventions)and so on do not exist.
That stuff is made up and we live in a planet where human beings are spectacularly good, selfless and caring and nothing bad ever happens since they are all altruistic and great.
Where can I find the whole presentation and q&a?
carmeister found it yet brother?
The exposing of the heart is something to witness. Nice kid, and intelligent too. Hope the follow up was fruitful. He has potential to be a warrior.
I dont agree with many things the professor says in his lectures but i do agree quite a bit on this topic.
0:51 - _"Why is that good?"_
This is red herring. Why is it relevant if it's objectively good or not (in other words if it ought to be this way)? He didn't claim that it *ought* to be this way, he claimed that it *is* this way. Using Hume's guillotine against atheism doesn't make theistic position immune to it.
Have a look at this dialogue (A - atheist; T - theist):
A: Why is that good?
T: Because God said so; thus, it is so.
A: This is how things *are*, not how they *ought* to be. Why they *ought* to be this way?
T: Because it is God's will.
A: It's still an _is_, not an _ought_.
T: But it's God's _is_.
A: It still is an _is_.
T: But how things God wants to be, *is* how things *ought* to be.
A: But you're just begging the question instead of giving the reasons. Furthermore, what if God decides that killing is good? Would this make killing good?
T: ...
Introducing the concept of God does not solve this problem. The more relevant question is: Why it *ought* to be objectively good in the first place?
You make a good point. But I think the point Frank enforces here is that, saying something is morally good is based on faith that an objective "is" exists. God is our objective standard and I'm fine to admit that. The position of God is not that He is within time and space, but rather that he is ultimately the root entity, so it makes perfect sense that God would be both the ought and is -- that is the entire point. It's intellectually dishonest to say that there isn't objective truth when making objective moral statements like "caring for others is certainly good."
To answer your question: The reason to find out why something ought to be, is so that one can be consistent in reasoning. If your reasoning is based off of an initial root cause, which holds objective truth -- then you can be consistent with that logic and state objective truths based on that reasoning. However, if your claim is that everything is merely natural, with no ultimate objective truth, then the only way you can remain consistent with that reasoning would be to deny that "caring for others" is an objective moral responsibility, stating different from would be inconsistent with the previous reasoning.
Then the next question that could arise from that would be; "Why should someone ought to be consistent in reasoning?" The answer to this would be; If there is no such thing as objective truth, then there is no basis for consistent reasoning, as everything would be an assumption leading from trust in senses and thought. If objective truth does exist, then it would be very beneficial to find out what that objective truth is.
"Why would it be very beneficial to find out what the objective truth is?" Like Frank brought up in this video, when speaking to people with extremely different worldviews, like Nazi, if there is no objective standard, then it's your word vs theirs and ultimately you're just both naturally responding to your evolutionary instincts and no one is wrong. However, if objective truth exist, it would be beneficial as it can transform the hearts of men who trusted in their own standards, which has proven to be extremely powerful.
The mere fact that anything at all actually "is," calls for a reasonable person to investigate, for the sake of intellectual consistency.
Yes, we claim that God is the ultimate; ought and is and we are consistent in that reasoning.
The only way an atheist could be consistent in his reasoning would be to say "I do not know that anything is right or wrong for certain."
Where as we say; "We claim that x is wrong because it is the standard set by God."
From there, it's all down to world view and who is God. But at least with arguments like this, people should become more intellectually honest and consistent in their reasoning.
I have faith in God, objective truth and I am consistent in my reasoning.
There's no purpose in making any claims or reasoning if there is no such thing as objective truth. Everything is not relative, because if that were so, then such a claim "everything is relative" would not be possible to form. If everything were relative, then the entire way of human reasoning and thinking is detached from reality, because people make objective claims and rely on laws all the time. If everything is relative, then nothing at all "is" or would "be."
If God said "Murdering is good" then yes, I would have to be consistent in my reasoning and if that were the case, then murdering wouldn't be something that would convict someone in their heart based on the world view of a God. That would be the same as saying to an atheist: "If the world didn't exist" -> but the properly basic belief of existence demands that the world does exist. I have a properly basic belief that morality comes from God and He said that you shall not murder.
Be consistent in reasoning, hold back no deep thought, ultimately you will end up at your root faith and trust. If there's no objective moral standard, be consistent in that. If there is an objective standard, be consistent with that. There is no good in lying to yourself.
Jordan M Richards, your argument is well-formulated and constructive, but it still begs the question. Let me explain why.
_"The position of God is not that He is within time and space, but that he is ultimately the root entity, so it makes perfect sense that God would be both the ought and is -- that is the entire point."_
And you are still talking about how things *are*. You are making ethical judgements based on an _is_, not an _ought_.
_"It's intellectually dishonest to say that there isn't objective truth when making objective moral statements like "caring for others is good.""_
No. That's an opinion, not an objective moral statement. I can easily disagree by saying that caring for people removes motivation and makes them lazy.
_"The reason to find out why something ought to be, is so that one can be consistent in reasoning. If your reasoning is based off of an initial root cause, which holds objective truth -- then you can be consistent with that logic and state objective truths based on that reasoning."_
Then the question is, how is it an objective truth that God ought to make the moral standards?
_"However, if your claim is that everything is merely natural, with no ultimate objective truth, then the only way you can remain consistent with that reasoning would be to deny that "caring for others" is an objective moral responsibility, stating different from would be inconsistent with the previous reasoning."_
I'm not denying that; I have refuted that.
+Giorgi Gzirishvili I do not debate or post comments on TH-cam much so this is quite new to me. Thank you for your prompt reply, so that I do not forget to respond. :)
"And you are still talking about how things are. You are making ethical judgements based on an is, not an ought."
>> Yes. You are absolutely right. This is what the purpose of the "faith" element to my argument was. The worldview of a theist is the faith that God is the "ought" and merely "is" and I am aiming to be consistent when I speak based in the faith that God "is" and "ought to be" the objective truth. It's not something that I can defend, but rather a faith position based on many different things which are debated elsewhere. It is dishonest for anyone to claim they have no faith. I think it is very healthy for an atheist to think about where their faith lies. Is the faith in a claim such as "there is no ultimate ought?" for instance. Frank in the video explained why this is very dangerous.
"No. That's an opinion, not an objective moral statement. I can easily disagree by saying that caring for people removes motivation and makes them lazy."
>> I was quite careless by using the words 'caring for others.' (That's funny!) What I meant was "loving others." Regardless, I would then refute that by stating; "God instructs us to treat others as we'd expect to be treated and to love others." >> This is irrelevant from whether it would make someone lazy, or removes motivation -- both of which do not actually hold up anyway. (Considering that when I personally help someone else, it actually makes me more productive in my own personal projects and motivates me to earn more, so I can help others more.) Moreover, in your opinion it is not an objective moral statement. But I see it as a statement that is an objective claim. Claiming that something "is" is a claim and it's important that claims are consistent with that person's initial objective truth source. -- An opinion based on faith that an objective moral standard exists. The opinion holds up and is consistent in my root reasoning and worldview. If I made that same statement as an atheist, I could still hold that opinion, but it wouldn't hold up without admitting to an objective moral standard existing in the first place.
"Then the question is, how is it an objective truth that God ought to make the moral standards?"
>> I wouldn't use the term "God ought to make the moral standards," but rather I would word your question as "Why is it that God ought to be good?" as the the claim is that God's will is what good actually is. Moral standards come from God's very nature, that God is good. A lack of being obedient to God's goodness by seeking own will over God's nature comes sin -- moral disobedience. I cannot prove that this is ought how it be, but I have explained how it is reasonably consistent with me making a claim such as; "Loving others is good."
"I'm not denying that; I have refuted that."
>> Great. I apologise. I was trying to be clear, as I know that others are likely to read the comment. But, I should have been more clear by making it obvious that it was not directed at you, but rather a statement to enforce my argument.
I am in agreement with the excellent point that Giorgi is making here.
T: morality is not based on god's decisions, as saying that something is right or wrong would be arbitrary. morality is not what god says, but what god IS. god cannot say that killing is good because it goes against his perfect nature. if god just made certain things bad out of mid- air, than they would be arbitrary, but its god's nature, the same nature that was placed in us, that allows us to know what is good and what is bad.
A: ...
This guy was a real piece of work, but I hope he at least read the book, instead of just saying he did.
God bless that young man for having a thoughtful, open-minded conversation with a very smart Christian man. All discourse should be this civil.
Another skeptic bites the dust. lol
😂
It would have been an interesting debate with a (moral) nihilist...
Putting religious in a moral debate with a humanist has predictable outcomes, as the former group had millenia to perfect bullshitting.
(Also the kid did miss some fine arguments, namely: "why is the existence of humanity good?" -> Because non-existence is not good, hence existence is a better alternative (for the subject in question), and since we don't give non-persons / inanimate objects a moral value, this is the only thing that should matter)
Márton Léránt You make no sense bud
_"why is the existence of humanity good?" -> Because non-existence is not good, hence existence is a better alternative_
I don't see how that solves anything. That only repeats what the kid did a few times in the video already; come up with more moral beliefs seemingly out of nowhere. Turek is just going to ask again, 'why is non-existence not good?'
Black Knight
To be frank, i am a moral nihilist, but i have some objections about this debate that is why i responded.
Good can be only defined.
(It is a theoretical construct, an idea - lets put aside where it exists, or who made it and focus first on our current debate)
The religious definition:
Good is what God wants (and God is Good)
The humanist definition:
Good is what helps my group (of course humanists, tend to include all humans, and some of them include animals that have some limited mental capacity) - the origins of this are very clear, as social beings need society to remain alive and reproduce. Thus groups that have no mechanism (like morality), to defend the needs of group will not survive.
Humanist claim OBJECTIVE morality's existence on the grounds that since societies/cultures (so groups) merge into one, they inevitably come to a shared common morality, and that this morality is evident by the fact, that all moralities present in previous societies (groups) with time tend to correlate to our modern morality, thus it can be expected that the end point (which may or may not be reachable) of this process is objective morality.
(Of course as a moral nihilist i have some objections against this argument,
BUT!
challenging a kid who knows very little about his own beliefs, by an expert, who is well practiced (or even educated) in attacking the said belief system is not a fair battle.
In this regard moral nihilists are a somewhat more staunch target (at least i believe so) as they tend to come to their conclusion alone, not by the virtue of respecting some authority (be it parents, famous people, ..etc.), thus they have deeper knowledge for why they hold their beliefs.)
This grasshopper is so unequiped to argue his ridiculous point.
Its sad. Its too easy to take down turek...
@@freethoughtgreg6424 Lol triggered atheist
Really, man is "altruistic". Then why the police? No, even Paul speaks to this some 2,000 years ago; "For he is the minister of God (speaking of those in authority) to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil." Romans 13:4. Basicly, police for local criminals, armies for people like Hitler.
Evolution is the answer to every question he asked...
If "humans are inherently altruistic and moral," why does every parent everywhere have to scold and correct their children for lying, screaming, demanding, hitting, stealing, coveting, manipulating.... All children do these things, without anyone having to train them to.
Morality comes from a trait derived from natural selection; as we went down an intellectual evolutionary path, humans that hurt others and stole hurt the group as a whole, and groups that had these less "moral" members that stole and killed either died out or got rid of the members that were hurting the groups progress and ability to make food and survive. This continued through history and was passed down through generations, creating our current moral standard around that ideology. This can be seen through others species of animals having a "pack" dynamic like wolves: they have some variation of the moral code we do, and it is to not hurt members of the pack. As humans became more intelligent through the less intelligent ones making worse tools and decisions leading to their demise, the smarter and stronger humans prevailed and those genes stayed in the gene pool, and this intelligence allowed people to see that the best way to be able to eat, reproduce, and, at its core, *prevent the suffering of people* was to cooperate as a tribes, countries, and later, as a species. People have an inherent desire to prevent suffering for others because all humans are able to feel that emotion.
Thank you for saying this. It's good to know I wasn't the only sane person to watch this video
Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
Michael Herron You dont make any sense. Youre saying there are "already" groups of "moral" people and less moral people come along and are banned, died off or whatever. How did these groups form to begin with? If its an evolutuonary path, then how do you get from one single thing to a group?...and more importantly..why? Wheres the point where it jumps from one single thing to two. What decided that this was beneficial from the start? And even if this was some way possible by chance, once there was two, the only way to know that not killing was beneficial would be to kill the other one.
You talk about a path but you leave out the very fact that your path starts from absolutely nowhere.
@@abren5974 that's a lovely picture, and one that has zero proof. If humans evolved that way then why didn't animals? Do you believe evil exists? If something is real it would exist for all living things but animals and plants know the concept of evil. It is a construct that exists only for humans, why?
To be honest, in the beginning I'm not exactly sure about what you were saying but correct me if I'm wrong if you are saying that the members who were doing what we would now consider it morally wrong were killed because they were hurting the ability to catheter or produce food or hinder progress? If so your argument is already wrong.
"Why is that a good thing? Who said?" Easy; we said. Humans have defined what is "good" and "bad" based on what allows our species to survive. That's the response this kid was looking for.
Maybe from a existence from the beginning of time with God showing us right and wrong and loving us is what defined it.
@@jamieschurr476 The problem with your claim is it implies that if something is good or bad, it will remain that way for eternity; thus, any example where we "changed our minds" about the morality of a behavior is evidence against your claim. Thus, as an example, since slavery was acceptable during the time of Jesus (there are even passages in the Bible instructing landowners on how to properly discipline their slaves) your claim would imply that slavery is thus morally acceptable forever. But since we've changed our minds about slavery, and decided it is morally reprehensible, this demonstrates that we can (and do) shape our own definitions of "good" and "bad".
@TIV67 Playz Natural selection ;) Think about it. Our species' primary adaptation is our ability to consort with one another and to form tribes that can outcompete any prey or foe (for example, a single human cannot bring down a mammoth, but a tribe of 100 men with spears they collectively constructed can bring down a mammoth). Early tribes that exhibited no basic moral structure-- i.e. contained no admonishment not to kill, steal, cheat, etc.-- inevitably collapsed because no group can survive with widespread immorality (e.g. widespread murder, theft, etc,). Thus, through basic natural selection, tribes that outlawed murder, theft, etc. survived and outcompeted those that didn't. So being moral was adaptively advantageous for our species-- that's why people exhibit morality.
Isn't the rule of evolution the strongest will survive? 🤔
And if it is why would we want to take care of each other?
It fascinates me how not only Frank but a lot of these kids can articulate their points on issues they care deeply about all the while keeping calm.
"Human history is the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy." - C.S. Lewis
This man is a servant sent by God to cure a the most severe case of disbelief, a disease like cancer, eating and crippling the soul to death.
WITHOUT God NO one can know what Right or Wrong is.
Right and wrong is not an objective truth. It is subjective to a people’s culture and human opinion. Cultures change. A long time ago, killing someone was not considered wrong, it was considered sport and one was praised for the amount of heads they collected. Is that wrong?
Jack Of All Trades lol im good with that
4:53 I’ve NEVER seen an atheist actually be that thoughtful and on a dime switch their stance and say “I think you’re right”. That absolutely floored me
Oh he’s not a materialist. That explains some of that.
Not everyone is inherently altruistic. Anyone who has had to teach their kids to share knows this.
Thank you Frank. I wish I was able to have a mind like yours. I love this channel and love to hear the minds of the next generation on what and how they think
I really respect the kid - love how he's putting heart and thought into his positions, but still open to changing and admitting when he might be off. It is WAY more than most of his peers will do with their golden years (hello TikTok generation).
I actually have respect for the atheists' honesty and open-mindedness, I must say👏🏻
Such a fruitful conversation man. Father I pray this boy comes to know you and understand you are Lord. Amen.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, wake up.
We are sinful , all of us, by nature, selfish and inevitably wretched. But love which is from God is the learning and suffering we have to agonise about to find true meaning to life. The emotional pain we suffer and the costs we pay for living right ( which is according to our conscience which God gave us all) is what defines our charachter and hopefully, if we lived obedient to Christ, it shaped us into His image. God said he loves those he disciplines. If we accept it and surrender to Him He can do anything through us. His grace is sufficient, it is more than enough for all to have eternal hope. Thankyou Jesus.
I think all it takes to suspect that people are not altruistic by nature is to have a kid, and if you want to verify it, have two.
The answer to that question was fantastic. Love that👌
As Christians we are ti invite Atheists to know your loving God, they are thee mission field ..and God works in them for good always. Love Dr Turek and his amazing discussions ...God bless you.
"I'm a busy guy"... yh, because hanging out with your friends is more important than finding out whether your entire world view is fundamentally flawed 😅
Jibu zuri sana hili.....umemjibu vizuri sana
That was delivered with such grace🙏
I'll say this. Frank does a great job stopping any doubt's I have about God.
Death gets closer to each and every one of us, and rather than preparing for the biggest event that will EVER happen to you, you spend your time trying to disprove the God that IS your only hope the very second after you die. Seems rather foolish.
This here proves that you have to be WILLING to accept & believe Christ... I definitely see bitterness but I’m going to pray for him because he can repent of that. I’m glad he asked the questions he did & had the ears to hear Dr.Tureks answers
It’s takes guts to prepare a whole argument against someone then say half way through it that they are right
He thought he was going to prove you wrong and all he did was prove you right. People, we can stand strong when we know our Bible, and learn from people like Dr. Turek.
Blessings everyone. Seed was beautifully planted.
Poor little fella is so smart, he doesn’t even understand his entire argument is “just because”.
The easiest way to challenge the moral argument is via the Euthyphro dilemma.