As was briefly touched on in the video, even if Christianity turns out to be wrong (I wholly believe it won't be) what have we got to lose? And if it turns out to be right, those who don't believe will be in agony in the lake of fire known as hell.
@@samuelmattingly1395 "what have we got to lose? " A life without doctrine and the realisation you'll have to live it to the fullest as this is all there is. Its enough for me.
@@dodongo7706 Well for the Christian ones, Mathew 7:21-23 clearly states that these hypocrites will be shunned and will not enter heaven. As for zealots of other religions, we may assume that they won’t enter heaven, however as an Orthodox Christian, it’s not my position to declare who receives salvation, that’s Gods call. God had shown mercy to other zealots such as Paul, who was persecuting Christians under Roman and Jewish law.
@@wild_burn Tell that to people that lose all family ties because they do not believe in the god you are believing in. Tell that to all the people who are the victims of religious violence. No matter your perspective, I'd refuse to let my life constraint by the lies being force upon you.
As an atheist, about to take you up on the challenge. I just bought the most beautiful copy of the gospel today, and I'll start reading the old testament as well during the Christmas holidays, it only seems right. I've been studying the religion for a while, i was born into catholicism after all, but you can't really say you know Christianity until you've read the book.
Happy Reading. Even if you don't take faith, I am sure you will learn lots of history and tap into a beautiful shared cultural wisdom spanning thousands of years and several continents. You may want to keep chatgpt or claude nearby and bounce your thoughts and the material off it. Make it a more interactive study.
I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that there's some mammal out there that LAYS EGGS? You're really telling me to believe that? Poppycock...
For some clarification, Pascal's wager was book ended by his belief that, if you decided to take his bet and immersed yourself in a group of Christians that you would learn about the faith and eventually your false belief based on hedging your bets would come to a true and devout belief. However, his assumption that all would gravitate toward Christianity as their start would have been true back in his day, but that doesn't hold in the modern world and is most certainly a flaw.
And, more importantly, it was presented as part of a larger work that put forward several other arguments. It was never intended to be used as a standalone argument, more as a way to nudge somebody who still wasn't sure over the line.
It’s hardly even an argument to begin with, it’s a cost benefit ratio/analysis between two propositions one being Christianity and atheism. All it is saying is that based on cost benefit analysis alone between the two that someone sitting on the fence would be more rational to side with Christian belief as infinite reward of one position versus an infinite loss of the other if Christianity turned out to be true. A lot of people on both sides misunderstand it as some kind of proof for God or that there’s a wager that makes atheism inherently dumb when that’s not the point. It’s more of a thought exercise and a nudge in a certain direction than a classical argument/apologetic afaict
@@LilBitDistributist Thank you: I've classified it as a thought experiment, and I'm surprised at how often people think that it's an argument for God's existence!
It's definitely a flaw. However, it can be helpful to get people to convert who are agnostic, or are already leaning towards Christianity anyways. Not everyone who professes to be Christian is, sadly.
tl;dr I don't like how you dismiss other religions but then boast Christianity so in the first paragraph I dismiss Christianity. In the second paragraph I argue that within a finite lifespan there are too many denominations of Christianity, which are too similar to each other to distinguish quickly, and so the wager turns into a gamble once again. In the final paragraph I use the fact that we have no good knowledge of what happens after death to create an equally plausible scenario where you do not want to believe in Christianity (hence I posit that things like the odds of them existing etc are nonsenical and purely vibes). I find it equally easy to disregard Christianity in the same ways that you disregard Budism, Islam, etc. Take for example the first page of Genisis, which is incompatible with modern knowledge on the formation of the universe, or how different kinds are said to be created which is incompatible with evolution, ofcourse Christian theologians have, over time, adapted their interpretations, these are all just metaphors, or these were written for people of an earlier time, etc (btw Noah's flood is another big one). Anyways this isn't my main point, as an Athiest I just found it funny how you disregard Budism because some of their tales were written about after Buddas death, just like all of the Christian Gospels (as far as I am aware, all of the Gospels that I am familiar with are, this also depends on your denomination of Christianity) which is unfortunate because I liked Butler's Wager and felt that it was inappropriately portrayed as dismissive of other religions. Anyways, the first issue with Butlers Wager is exactly the same as Pascals, for starters: which version of Christianity? There are so many lookalikes and denominations, and differences in teaching, do you really think you would be able to, within your finite lifespan, tell them apart with any real degree of certainty? I do not, for me I would say that this wager is still a blind guess, and I would rather think that an all-good, all-knowing god did not let a roulette decide my fate. And here is a sillier thought experiment: For whichever god you belive in, due to Pascals wager or Butler's Wager, imagine a counter-god, one who acts exactly like your god, except that at the end of your life, they will do the opposite of what they've promised you, so you go to hell instead of heaven and vice versa. For such a god any evidence towards your god is equally evidence towards the counter-god, unless you believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful god cannot trick you into believing they are all-good :), then once again you are left with a roll of the dice. With regards to this argument, I believe that it counters all arguments that claim to know, or even claim to think they might have evidence for, a being like a god exists. The key to this argument is the fact that we do not have empirical ways of 'checking in' on those that have died, and hence there is not way to verifying, or measuring, or approximating, or estimating, what happened to them after they died, this is also why this argument does not work in the case of e.g. my fridge, because you can come and see that I do indeed, have a fridge. Finally notice that a wager would be redundant if you had real, verifiable, strong evidence of Christians going to heaven after they die, since in that case you wouldn't argue in this roundabout way, talking about doing your own research, you would just cite a neat, concise document with the evidence, and the evidence wouldn't be disputed, it would be replicable (I could check if I wanted to) and everybody would already believe in the correct religion. But that's not where we are and hence I am going to sleep now. Good night.
This is my life experience! I was raised on an atheist family and as a teenager I began wondering about life's meaning and I soon realized that if religions were right I had to expore them for my own safety. I explored them all in theory and some in practice, as well as many Christian denominations, and now I've been a Roman Catholic for seven years, utterly happy in a life of Grace and the hope of everlasting life.
I've been a catholic for since birth and grew up in a catholic country. I even studied in a catholic school. Then when I started reading the bible, I realised the error that I am practicing as a catholic. I gave my life to Christ and move away from the religion I grew up with.
this had pretty much been my journey. I'm a lifelong atheist but through Alex O'Connor I started looking into Christianity more thoroughly. At first it was more a historic interest. How did this guy 2000 years ago have such a large effect on the modern world we live in today? Now, I'm still an atheist (probably agnostic now) but I've started taking the historic and theological arguments for Christianity more seriously. I've even started praying and gone to church a few times because there is that doubt in my head now of "what if it IS all true?"
It seems you're on the path to self-delusion. If your goal is comfort over the pursuit of truth, then, by all means, indulge in that illusion. But I'd be curious-what aspect of Christian doctrine has convinced you to entertain the thought, 'What if it's all true'?
@@Matt-on4of Right, so you're teetering on the edge of buying into a Bronze Age superstition based on some historical curiosity and an existential game of "what-ifs". Well, let's unpack that: The Bible is an incoherent patchwork of plagiarized myths, mistranslations, and political propaganda-not some divine handbook. You seriously are going to appeal to the narcissistic deity who supposedly devised the whole universe but couldn't devise anything more intelligent in redemption terms than a cosmic blood sacrifice? That would be like burning down a house because there's a spider inside. It was Roman imperialism, forced conversions, and a millenary history of scare tactics masquerading as love and salvation, not some divine proof that explains the proliferation of Christianity. And what "doubt" are you having? It's the very same manipulative trick religions have used for thousands of years to make you feel broken, then sell you the cure. If you're looking for truth, perhaps start with evidence and reason, not groveling to an ancient marketing scheme designed to control your fear of death. Don't mistake centuries of cultural inertia for validity-it's not profound, it's just persistent nonsense
I think Pascal created his wager in order for it to function in the way that Butler expressed it. More like "it is worth betting on investigating the supernatural " than "bet blindly". Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone.
Yes, he did mean it that way. It's actually upsetting how people misinterpret his words. He thought if Christianity was true, Jesus would show himself to anyone who truly knocked on his door as Bible promises.
@@hebthbf He probably should have worded it that way instead of the other way then. Lol You whacky protestants, always trying to read between the lines and "interperet" clear and concise writings.
From what I've heard, Pascal's wager is best used under highly specific circumstances: when you have already been investigating, and you're just on the fence as to whether you should invest your life in Christianity or back out into agnosticism or atheism, use the wager as a tie breaker. But even then you still run into the "you can't force yourself to believe" problem.
@@dogsandyoga1743 People don't get convinced to become Christian they get forced to become Christian by some sort of stress in their life commonly called a "come to Jesus moment" such as a near death situation or birth of a child. It is stress-related. This is why using logic and arguments about religion in general are pointless.
My thoughts have always been, if you can narrow the scopes down to just Christianity or atheism/agnosticism, it is simply more logical to be a Christian. But, again, you're right, that doesn't solve unbelief.
I would argue that Pascal's wager is not an apologetic argument in any normal sense. It is a way of choosing the best course in life given limited data. This is not the same as demonstrating evidence for God etc. Thanks!
I kinda agree. I think Pascal's wager actually has some strong value in the points it tries to makes, but you can only take it so far and if that is your apologetic you use to try and preach the gospel with, you have some problems lol. But, I think if you take it for what it is, it actually still does make some good educational and philosophical points, but no you shouldn't make it the basis of your conversion or apologetic.
Yeah, no. Heaven will become the earth after the great resurrection but that waiting place that we’ll be in is spiritual prison/paradise. Look into LDS theology if you’re interested.
@@IndoHelleneBall At the resurrection there will be a new heaven and new earth. However I also like to think of Heaven more as a state than a physical location. It is the state of perfect and complete relationship with God.
Alex O’Connor has also shown that it’s possible for an atheist TH-cam channel to start giving a fair hearing to the case for Christianity, without hurting the subscriber count.
Alex is probably the closest I’ve seen to someone seriously taking the Wager-but when it comes to his arguments against Christianity, especially the New Testament, they’re mostly recycled Bart Ehrman takes. Honestly, it feels like a greatest hits album of skepticism. On top of that, I think he overhypes the problem of evil, as if it’s the ultimate trump card. Sure, it’s a tough question, but it’s not the mic drop he seems to think it is.
@@TestifyApologetics Funny thing is Bart Erhman lost so many debates with Christians and yet he is still recycling his refuted arguaments over and over again to decieve many also I wonder if any of these two were Christians in the first place if they left for their arguaments like Imagine seeing a critical arguament and not even trying to debunk it and just give in.
@@TestifyApologetics alex is mad disingenuous like bart. he knows christianity is deep and has answers but will continue to present popular reddit level objections just to "win" a debate. people respect him on all sides because he is a very efficient chameleon.
The absurd biased nature of this “Challenge” automatically throws any kind of credence to this idea out for me. Scholars agree that Jesus did exist, but to say he was well documented ( outside of the Bible ) is an extremely Bold claim. Not accounting for contradictions and the like within the Bible itself. The way I read this whole thing is “Start with Christianity first so you are more likely to believe our religion before you research any others”. It also discounts the many atheist scholars who know more about Christianity your average Christian. Nice try though
oh, the ole’ “contradictions in the bible” argument. Has never been really proven and it is the single most scrutinized piece of literature in history. Also, trying to discredit Jesus because there is not a lot of evidence outside the Bible is a major flaw. You forget to consider that the New Testament is a compiled book of different narrations and letters throughout a period of less than a 100 years by different authors. It is not a book that was designed in a day by a single author. By your resistance on the challenge you are just proving the point that you lack a lot of education in Christianity thus you are not a real critic. Nice try though.
Yeah, I'm not so sure why he'd want us to start with Christianity first if his ultimate goal was for us to find truth. However, this challenge does make sense, if you start with just any religion outside of just "start with Christianity because it's wild 🤪"
I was born into a Christian family, attended church, studied the Bible, and sincerely believed in God. My deconversion journey was painful since I didn't want to stop believing. I simply couldn't maintain my belief in the face of so many contradictions and evidential problems. So I would say I have answered Butler's wager.
@johngriffiths2637 I mean this with all the respect in the world, I promise. If you think there are contradictions in the Bible then you did not study it. I honestly thought the same thing. I decided maybe I should see why people said there were not. I was very wrong. There are none. There are a lot of misunderstood things, or things taken out of context. "Evidence that demands a verdict" was a great book. I don't remember if it's Josh McDowell or his son who wrote it. Mike Winger has an entire series on youtube where he tackles supposed contradictions. Remember a lot of people will disappoint us. Especially people who claim to be Christian. That doesn't mean it's God who is wrong. That's the whole point of the gospel. We suck. We sin and make mistakes. Jesus loves us so much He died to pay for those sins. We are never perfect. He is and when we trust in Him we are made perfect. Even though sometimes we still suck 😉 I pray you are blessed and Jesus speaks to you.
The strongest case for Christianity is that that the bible is the literal word of god and details the miracles that prove the existence of god. Unfortunately, we know the bible had mortal authors, and that the new testament was written down decades after Jesus' death (often not even by those the gospels were named after). This disproves the religions strongest case, and reminds me why christian apologetics comes across more as trolling than anything else...
You lost me starting at about 2:30. There is no contemporary evidence that people immediately proclaimed Christ rose from the dead, especially with the empty tomb and stone narrative that you depicted. Nor is there contemporary evidence to suggest that Christ’s followers were under threat of persecution immediately after the crucifixion.
@@jimurban5367 I was a little confused by your statement at first, but I figured I’d ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. What are you looking for as far as evidence of the resurrection and following persecution? You mention contemporary evidence but how soon after are you trying to get these documents, what would be a reasonable timeline for you to have confidence in the accuracy?
@ It would be best if we had immediate writings, by multiple independent authors. Unfortunately, we don’t. Instead, we have the writings from Paul, within two to three decades of Jesus’ death, which provide very few details of Jesus’ resurrection; followed by the anonymous Gospels and Acts within, what, four to nine decades after Jesus’s death, with Matthew and Luke largely copying from Mark, and the details across the these five books becoming increasingly embellished as the writing is further removed from Jesus’ death.
@@jimurban5367this is really just regurgitated talking points made by atheists online, no luke and matthew dont copy from mark and while mark being the earliest account is the consencus, Marks christology is one of the highest among the gospel probably only behind john. Have u ever tried reading through mark? Because i have a feeling u havent, even as someone with no biblical context who cant see that mark 1:2 1:3 and so on are echoes of old testament divine passaged as early as mark 2 Jesus is seen forgiving sins something only God does. So i just have to say what are you looking for, if before you even starting to look for evidence you already dissmiss the evidence without even looking i have huge doubts you can be convinced by any amount of evidence.
hi sceptic here. you asked at 4:14 to explain why i still reject Christianity after a rigorous examination and my answer is insufficient rational evidence. i have searched and searched and for the life of me i am unable to find a single argument that holds up after i think about it critically for more than 30 seconds. feel free to prove me wrong :)❤ no hard feelings
@TestifyApologetics it really isn't. I was very kind to you in not pointing your reversal of the burden of proof fallacy and decided to provide my own argument as to why I don't believe in your god which is I do not see sufficient logical evidence that would warrant such a belief. In reality I don't have to prove he doesn't exist because as an theist the burden of proof is solely on your shoulders as you are the one making the claim. Trying to use big fancy words will not save you from having to back yourself up with logically sound evidence. My articulation is quite simple, no theist has succeeded in meeting the burden proof and therefore I'm an atheist
No, you made the claim that you investigated Christianity and found no evidence. Steelman the Christian argument and tell me why it doesn't work. It's not reversing the burden of proof. You claimed that you studied it, now buck up and demonstrate it or be quiet.
As far as I can tell, following the evidence leads to agnosticism. There simply is not sufficient objectively convincing evidence to rationally accept any of the supernatural claims of the Bible. And this is not just an off the cuff throwaway line; it is the considered opinion of someone who has read and seen more than his fair share of scripture, theology, and apologetics. I think I have given Christianity a fair shake, and thus far it has failed to provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence to rationally accept its teachings.
@@TestifyApologetics You said: _"Great. Steelman an argument for Christianity and tell me why it doesn't work."_ Sure. If we take your version of "Butler's wager", we are still left with insufficient objectively convincing evidence for the resurrection, and the Christian God still demands faith and love, which are involuntary, irrational emotional responses.
@@cedward5718 You said: _"Given the alternative which is death, how much evidence is necessary?"_ Exactly as much as when the alternative would be eternal bliss. You don't lower your standards of evidence for your preferred outcome. Would you take a medicine that was tested by its manufacturer if what you suggest were true? You said: _"Would you want God to exist?"_ I would probably prefer the Christian God over some, perhaps even many, other deities, provided it offered a solution for the eternal torment for dissenters thingy. I do have a weak spot for the Greco-Roman pantheon, though, so on a good day I may want Zeus and his buddies to exist. What about you? Would you want a God to exist that would send your child to suffer in hell for all eternity just because she was unable to believe this deity existed? You said: _"We have beliefs because of uncertainty."_ I agree. And when a deity demands belief but refuses to provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence to rationally accept its existence, then that deity cannot be regarded as "good" or "just" or "loving" anymore. If you believe in such a deity, that's fine, as long as you are aware that it must be either indifferent or evil.
Okay. Let me tackle this from my perspective. Firstly, what is Hell? To be without god, correct? So therefore, why is it always depicted as this whole burining in eternity thing? Doesn't exactly speak well to god's morals if that's his idea of a fair punishment. Secondly; If you are moral enough, you will go to heaven regardless, yes? If I was an entirely moral person ( by YOUR standards, just to make things easier ) and bever once believed in Christianity, should I go to heaven or hell? If hell, your god isn't fair. Lastly ( and this is personal ): Believing in him would do nothing for me. Why would worshiping an intangible force that has never shown itself to me even accomplish? I already live morally. You know what that would accomplish instead? Stress. Stress that I'm not accidentally doing something wrong. Stress that I'm going to hell. Stress that I commited sin. Stress that the being I oray to will cast me into hell anyways simply for thoughts. It is a toxic mindset to have and I'd rather do without it, obviously.
Sister Faustina has a nice summary of what you're touching on: God's nature demands judgement but His persons desire mercy. Keep that in mind forever, it is a strong heuristic. Now for each of your concerns: Hell is a willing and knowing disconnect from God, you're right. The reason it is depicted as fire I believe is a mix of the Roman in Roman Catholic, and a way the divine relates their physics to our lower ones. What does it mean to be moral enough ? It's by God's physics and being this is compared against. This is a basically impossible task for humans that know ourselves and our desires first. It's why Christianity is unique in saying there is no work good enough to reconcile us with God, so God Himself came down to create this bridge. Christianity is unique in saying that the path to salvation isn't knowledge, or work, or faith. It is a relationship. Desolation is a common feeling in Christian communities. St. Therese of Liseux is among many in saying, what am I to God ? What are our works to God ? But, you WILL worship something. You will be animated by something else, driving your actions and desires. You will be controlled by something else. Either choose to worship yourself and your flesh if you want, or accept the grace given to be who and what you were made to be. If instead you want to nail your flesh to a cross, build virtue, and be more than a monkey driven by pleasure and pain, someone has already done it. God and His church He founded in Catholicism is out there. You are called to make your physics compatible with God's perfection. If you do not want to, He will respect your decision. For it would be wrong to force you to be with Him otherwise right ?
@standard-user-name okay. That still doesn't satisfy my questions. Going onto Hell: It is depicted as a miserable place filled with brimstone and such. It is where the wicked go to rot. So, I ask. Why? Sure, they get their due punishment but lasting that long, no matter how cruel an individual, is a horrific violation of humanity. That is immoral. To continue this point: Being moral is entirely possible without being religious. What I am saying is that a person can be moral, even when using your own religion's code. So, in this case: Should this individual go to heaven or hell? If Hell is merely brought about by the absence of God, then this individual will go to Hell, yes? In that case, there is a flaw with the system. If you try to argue there are no moral atheists, you are very clearly misinformed or biased. Morals as a whole are based on human values in the first place. And, if you are to say that God gave humans inherent morals: God is not needed, as we already have morals.
@theoriginalchuckler9594 No, you cannot be moral. Morality requires an objective standard to judge against. You can only evaluate behavior using your personal preferences or the social preferences of the society in which you live. If you want objective morals that constrain a creator, then you are a hellenist. Read Plato and stop pretending to be an atheist. Finally, the Christian God exists outside time and space. Why assume eternity will be string of linear conscious moments?
Why would you stress out about being immoral if you truly believe that you’re living a moral life? Why would believing in God suddenly make you doubt that?
@@bluecannibaleyes Because the implication of God neccesitates that I follow his morals if I am to get into heaven, which I do not always agree with. You would not feel stressed working on your own, but if you have the eyes of your boss looming over you and scrutinizing you for even the tiniest mistake, or rather just a difference in how you work, or an opinion or what have you: would you not be more stressed?
To be fair, from what I heard, Pascal's Wager was the final part of his arguments for Christianity. He started with evidential approach and then tossed that on the end, but ppl took that last part and "debunked" it and ignored all the build up.
Don't you find it weird that people who believe in particular religion end up with conclusion that their religion is the right one? If Pascal was Muslim and said you should believe in Allah would that convince you to become Muslim? You lose nothing in believing in Allah if he's not real but if you don't believe in him and he's real then there's a problem. "My religion is obviously the right one" said every theist
@realdragon People being the same religion they were raised doesn't discredit Christianity's legitimacy. On the contrary, the many people who started athiest or something else and essentially followed Butler's wager and committed to deep inquiry of the facts and arguments only to find Christianity true, like none other than C.S. Lewis, gives immense credit to Christianity.
@@Parallax3599 What about Christians that converted to other religions? Or atheists who converted to non Christian religions? Ir theists who became atheists? Again you can make same argument about literally any other religion
As an atheist, I'm not offended by this video in any way, I just think it's pointless honestly. It essentially feels like listening to a flat-earther insist that you give his views a fair shot by reading through all the evidence for flat-earth theory before criticizing his beliefs. I understand that a lot of people might feel like this is an incredibly unfair or even insulting comparison to make, but you have to understand that we are talking about a religion which preaches that a man 2000 years ago was born to a virgin and that he healed people with divine powers, walked on water, and rose the dead. It would be one thing if people took a symbolic view of these stories, but you need to believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus were events that literally happened in order to be considered a true Christian, and I don't think any amount of Bible study is going to make me less sceptical. Frankly, I think Christians would be just as sceptical of these stories if they heard them in any other context outside of scripture.
Exactly. The subhuman that created this video as well as those leaving comments agreeing with the premise without second thought also place Christianity above all other faiths. What it claims is exactly the same as what the Muslims claim. Why should one "start with Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter? This is just Pascal's Wager but just dressed up in such a way that it appears rational and respectable.
Despite Jesus Christ being mentioned in Roman records and a handful of other non-Christian historic letters, there are no independent records of his resurrection. People getting tortured and killed for their beliefs is sadly nothing out of the ordinary, so his followers being prosecuted for their beliefs is not an argument.
Oof, lack of “independent records” of the resurrection is irrelevant. The earliest accounts are embedded in the New Testament itself, which is a collection of historical documents written by people directly connected to the events. Expecting Romans or Jews to happily record the resurrection undermines how history worked-hostile sources don’t typically document what validates their opponents’ claims. The fact that Christianity exploded in the face of immediate persecution, centered on this audacious claim, makes it historically unique. Dismissing it without engaging the evidence is just lazy skepticism. Try again.
@ Yes but those are more of the arguments on Christian traditions or how some things are interpreted in Bible(99% of them is agreed by both), but 99% of understanding of Bible between Catholics and Orthodox are same, the only things that are considered very different between them is the pope and the calendar(which isn’t even talked that much). If putting something heretical in the Bible would be so easy we would not have Councils of Nicea, inquisitions and multiple denominations(most of them are pretty bad)
Thanks for the choice between nonsense,nonsense and nonsense. I choose to believe in elvis,many eyewitnesses for his ressurection,many books written about him,being seen after he died... Close second is big foot,there is even video footage of it! 🤪
Pascals Wager already overcomes the listed objections. Firstly, it does not, in the abstract, select specifically for the Christian religion: only for theism. Alternatively: it sets itself in the specific case of Christianity vs. Atheism. In other words: it's either A) some god X (TBD) vs. no god at all { where the variable "god" belongs to the set of posited divine entities }, or B) the triune God of Christendom _specifically_ vs. no god at all. It's a controlled dichotomy where you are selecting the variable "god" either before the Wager or after it, not in the middle of it. Secondly, the ante is negligible. The calculus is simple and easy: it is only willfully subverted by irrational motivated reasoning. Thirdly, there is no forced belief. That's another misunderstanding that results from subconsciously willful distortion of the terms. To clarify: Pascale's Wager implicitly understands that it's a gamble - _it's in the name and framing._ The Wager as posited didn't say "believe" / "don't believe": it said "live as if God is real" / "live as if God is not real." I'll reiterate: Pascal's Wager is about _living,_ not believing. Now, if you live as if God is real: (unforced) belief is a fairly natural consequence. However - as Butler provides a similar entry to Christendom for those earnest seekers who are genuinely confounded by Pascal - let all who may find The Way.
There are lots of problems here. Lets start with the obvious ones. 2:28 it does make bold historical claims and the only evidence for those claims are in the holy scripture of that religion.... 3:32 is Christianity is false you lose a bit of time.... Only for seconds later call people with degree's in theology and biblical scholars uninformed. How much time am i to spend on it? am i expected to get a theology degree? or just watch youtube apologists... This is so unclear its not practical. Also its reverse is true for Christians. If atheism is false, you wasted a little time. If atheism is true, you have found truth.... 4:24 this challenge is impossible. Because the every argument has defeaters and defeaters for those defeaters at this point. Every reason i could give why do not think Christianity is true is something you have an answer for. Most likely an answer i do not accept or think is a good answer. At which point you will probably accuse me of not having studied it enough or not being able to complete the challenge to your satisfaction because i did not use the defeaters i do not think are credible but you do. 2:02 i will remember this is a credible objective next time a christian accused me of being an atheist just because i want to sin...
1) I have to admit I fail to see how these two wagers are related. Pascal's wager is an argument specifically not from evidence but instead payoff matrices while Butler's wager is not an argument at all but rather a call to come to a believe based on evidence, with the conviction that an honest investigation of evidence will lead to Christianity (where I do find the latter to be much more usefull) 2) This brings us to my second point: What would be considered a 'fair' investigation of Christianitie's claims? If you have both Christian's and atheists coming to opposite conclusions while both insisting that they did a 'fair' investigation, we can only conclude that there is a mismatch concerning what is considered a 'fair' investigation.
This kind of stuff always bugs me because I'm a Christian and I was an Atheist for a good 15 years, and I actually looked into Christianity's lack of evidence in terms of Ahteism, and there really is no evidence that can't be easily hand waved away, and I'm tired of Christian's pretending otherwise when it's in the Bible itself that you can't just get into heaven by being "wise." All the "look at the trees" and "it's in the Bible" evidence is baseless unless you decide otherwise. it's "faith" because of that. We doubt because of that. I love Jesus Christ, and he is my Lord and Savior. I love everyone and want nothing but happiness and success for them, and I want people to be saved and come to know Him, but pointing to our usual stuff and going "see, God exists" isn't going to convince people any more than me pointing to a house fly is going to convince you that you owe me 50 bucks. I decided to believe because I wanted peace. To not need to worry about if I'll be able to pay bills, or eat. To not need to worry about if I'll find anyone to love, or being successful. To be able to go from being so ridden with depression and anxity that I'm rocking on my bed to calm and relaxed just because I've got closer to Jesus (Worked to form new calming nureo pathways) for me is worth picking Jesus, and (if I went to church) 10% of my income like weed is worth (at least) 10% of a stoner's income and all their "whoa, weeeeed bro" stuff. Lastly, Jesus is actually pretty cool and chill. Read Matthew. God bless all y'all
@@0xPRIMEgs No. Clearly you haven't. I recommend you check out Pocket Guide to Objectivism, by the Atlas Society as a primer so you can understand what it actually stands for.
@chrisxdeboy why though? You've literally told me nothing about it? I googled it, and what I previously replied to you is what I found about it, and when I asked if it was correct, you just said no and pointed me to a book.
Heh, I took the challenge decades ago, and jumped full on into Christianity for many years, diligently reading and studying the Bible as if my life depended on it. Always praying and asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and God's will. Eventually, I came to realize that none of the reasons I had for believing could stand up to scrutiny. And watching this video is more of the same. Contrary to what Testify said, there are actually many atheist speakers and counter apologists who have long ago taken Butler's challenge, and no longer believe after deeply investigating the history of Christianity.
@AlexanderEllis-x7v An example of one of my reasons for being a Christian that I no longer found valid? I'll give you two: 1. Begging the Question - I became very afraid of the notion of burning in Hell for eternity, and afraid that I would miss my chance to "get saved" from a fate worse than death. Found out this is not really a good reason because neither Heaven or Hell has ever been demonstrated to exist in reality. It's only been words from ancient religious books or people's mouths. They are indistinguishable from empty manipulative threats. So I asked myself, "why would a loving and truthful God expect people to accept a statement as true without adequate evidence, and threaten people to love him?" If anyone resorts to threatening people with physical and emotional abuse just to get them to love them... I concluded this is very narcissistic and psychotic. 2. Arguments from Incredulity - I was once incredulous to considering how any other possibility than a "god" could have created our universe in it's current state. Then I became aware of my own thought stopping techniques that I had adopted from the church, and found out that it's OK to use my brain and consider other possibilities that might not feel comfortable at first. Incredulousness is kind of like willing ignorance. The church and most apologists are very skilled at trying to convince people that they should view any alternative idea of Christian creationism as "ridiculous", without providing adequate reasons. This is only a surface level explanation, but there's SO much of my former faith tied to these points.
@AlexanderEllis-x7v I'm sorry. I sent you a response but it disappeared. I don't know if it was a technical issue or because the channel owner decided to delete it. I think my answer will show up in your email as a TH-cam notification. It'll probably be there in full.
My problem with Pascal's wager (and Butler's too) is that it is a cognitive manipulation based on a wrong evaluation of an outcome. It states that if you believe in God, but it does not exist, you lose nothing, which is false. Because actually you lose your limited time on Earth and, at least partially, your free will, because you voluntarily bind yourself with a strict rule set of a religion you believe in. I am not saying that religious rules are bad, but sorry, I want to eat pork and not spend 2 hours of my weekends to pray
Watching this video and reading this comment section is like taking a master class in entrenching beliefs. I left the religion/atheist scene, I spend my time trying to fix myself so I can try to make the world a little brighter without convincing other people they need to believe what I believe
That phrase "When you can present the strongest case for christianity and explain why you still reject it" breaks the entire argument for me. The strongest argument for any claim would be one that can't be shown to be untrue. I'll have to find every argument and check if anything speaks against them. Only if I find one that has no counter, I have found the strongest argument. That could be the first one I find or it could be dozens down the line. If it's the first one, I won't have a much better understanding of christianity since I didn't have much exposure to the topic. If there are dozens before that with only one single point that renders the entire idea of christianity completely impossible, that one argument doesn't matter anymore since I have already shown the impossibilty of the entire concept. The wager works only if I find several points of interest, show they are not convincing and then find one that is convincing which I can't refute. And also, I then would have to do that whole ordeal again for the next religion to break the many religions objection, since I have only checked two possibilties at that point. So I check the truth of Judaism next and find the exact same arguments convincing and am now stuck in two very similar yet different believe systems. That being said: The most convincing argument to me is the flood of Noah. If that ever happened, the power of God is shown to be true. However, the egyptian and chinese dynasties show records before and after the flood supposedly happened, showing conclusevely that the entire world was not submerged by water and humanity was not wiped off the face of the earth. If you disagree with my assesment of the strongest argument, let me know which one you think is the strongest one and I will give it a look.
"The strongest argument for any claim would be one that can't be shown to be untrue." Is a trivial answer. This holds true for any claim. He's referring to an argument that may not be indisputable but provides enough evidence to make it unreasonable or illlogical to reject. An example of this is the safety and reliability of vaccines. No one can present an argument that can't be shown to be untrue that guarantees safety for every vaccine administered; *however, there is such an abundance of evidence that suggest a general safety, effectiveness, and reliability of vaccines that antivaxxers are understood to be unreasonable and illogical in their disbelief/distrust in vaccines despite not having indisputable proofs*. That's what he's saying.
Okay. I myself am an atheist. So I don’t think any of the arguments I’ve seen so far have been convincing. But I wanted to point out that “presenting the strongest case for Christianity” isn’t necessarily going through every single argument. I think it just means steel man what you think is the best evidence/argument they have presented and show why you disagree. Obviously there could be more arguments that you just didn’t consider but I think you would be in the right intellectually speaking.
Oh and by the way. I think the bigger problem of the video is Tesify’s claim that we should look at the bolder claims. Personally I think we should look at the more basic claims like “a god exist”.
@JM-19-86 So the short form would be "The universe exists, therefor God exists". The steelman could go two ways: First any version of the cosmological. They all define God into existance as the cause of the universe or rely on special pleeding since God never began to exist. So God could always be, but an infinite bouncing universe model is impossible. That way is not convincing and fails by applying different rules for either side. The second steelman I can think of is that God started the universe by setting the laws of the universe and letting everything happen on it's own. In that case, God would "exist" outside the univere, wich is functionally the same as not existing. By seeing the universe exists, I can see that existance exists. By seeing the universe began, I can see that there was a beginning. I don't know who or what that beginning was. To be "edgy as heck, boooiiii" I'll say the flying spaghetti monster caughed and one of it's meatballs turned into our universe. I have no way of determining the truth of either statement, so I don't know if Christianity of Pastafarianism is correct. Or any other religion with a creation for that matter.
I propose a counter wager. If a god sends people to heaven or hell based off of ignorance or luck, then there isn't any point in trying to get to heaven because the standards of getting there are completely arbitrary. So you can struggle to overthink which religion is right, and then overthink about whether or not you fit their vague description for hellbound or heavenbound people, or accept the fact that all religions are stupid for thinking that you will magically be wafted towards the correct one if you try hard enough to find it.
"If a god sends people to heaven or hell based off of ignorance or luck" - the false premise your entire argument rests upon and therefore fails because of.
The only reason people go to hell is sin (aka self destruction). Now show me the only realigion on earth, that explains in detail what sin actually is, and gives a clear explanation how God solved the problem of sin in humanity. Not only Christianity is the only religion that established what sin is, how it originated and how to solve it, but also if Jesus is not God, whatever you do in this life it won't matter anyway. It's eather there is no god, or you're doomed in every other religion because you can not accomplish all the deeds they require perfectly, and you'll end up in their hell. Study Christianity. Not only the Bible. You have writings of the church fathers, that explain thr history of establishing the church and the struggles they had against impossible odds, in a world conquered by paganism, they prevailed. How can it be?
God doesn't send people to hell out of ignorance, for whoever did not know the law will be judged of the law that was revealed to him( if someone only knew Buddhism his entire life, and was born into that life with no contacts to any other religion, he will be judged off that and be revealed the gospels after he dies) God doesn't judge out of luck, everyone is given a fair chance to go to heaven, and God gives people way more mercy then you might think, some people who believed in God go to hell, and there's people who dint know Christ and went to heaven. Some people are given more grace, in the sense they are luckier with more money, but ultimately everyone is given a chance of being with God. Know this raises the question: why evangelize if people will be judged on the law revealed to them anyway? Because its much easier to get to heaven, and provides a much clearer pathway to salvation and a much better world(just look at the contributions of Christianity to the world), imagine a perfect map to get to disney world. Sure another less perfect guide could work, but why do that when theres a perfect, better one. Of course, everyone is given a fair chance at salvation, never forget that. Also few religions say " follow these rules or you end up in hell eternally", Buddhism doesn't say that, although i recall it has a concept of temporal punishment for bad deeds, Hinduism etc. I know Islam(and even some sects disagree) and Christianity, Judaism(I am not even too sure on that) and some other monotheistic religions. So there's few religions that even do that, that you have to rule out. And then other religions like Hinduism pose metaphysical problems that Christianity resolves.
@@LawlessNatei think he’s referring to people who have never heard of Christianity, even after Christ’s Resurrection. AKA eternal damnation from ignorance. And those who would reject Christianity due to personal trauma from Christians AKA they were just unlucky they were exposed and scarred by bad Christians and thus given a negative personal view on Christianity altogether. So this would be by luck. You also have people who were born in non-Christian families and regions and just lived life normally according to the customs and religion(s) of their region. But because those religions weren’t Christianity, they now have a huge bias for their religion, they are given an extremely unfair disadvantage in eternal salvation versus a person born and raised in a Christian country and by a happy Christian family. So another example of salvation or damnation through luck. This is even more true for those in the same era as Christ’s resurrection. You just hear random followers of Jesus Christ spouting that he resurrected. And all you have to go off of is their word. Not much evidence other than the “why would a man knowingly spread lies and risk such a horrible execution unless what he is saying is truly true?” argument which isn’t really evidence but just logical reasoning and that’s if they ever happen to connect those dots together.
@@AxhenioShkurtiso people who are ignorant of God’s teachings won’t go to Hell? Or they will go to Hell because they still sinned and haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their savior? Or would God ignore the “accepting Jesus Christ as your savior” requirement because it was literally impossible for them to if they never knew he existed in the first place? And thus God would do a case by case for these ignorant cases? Or is there no mention of this in the Bible? And you just have faith that God wouldn’t be so unfair in judging those cases in which they have zero exposure to Christianity?
When I was an atheist/agnostic, in a deep inner crysis I asked myself "what if there is something else, no matter how stupid infinitesimal the chance may be, it makes sense to find it out. I have nothing to lose". In that season I began investigating about Miracles in general and in Catholicism/protestantism, and Neard Deah Experiences. That didn't convinced me completely but it set me on a path to finding Christianity, bear that, being atheist, for me it was hard to even conceive a higher power, let alone a personal God, and is a thing I struggled with during many years.
God bless brother. Sometimes cradle Catholics don't know the gift they have. It can be very difficult for atheists to realize not just that there is a God, but one that actually cares about us. Or for Muslims to have their worldview shattered, but still come to Christ. `
these discussions always come down to discussions about the historical credibility of the resurrection. and these are very weak "the apostles would not die for a lie" or maybe the apostles simply believed that Jesus was the messiah?
God founded a Church, not a book. There are miracles happening to this day in Catholicism. Our Lady of Lourdes has a team of doctors on site to verify any healing claims; which are then often backed by the person's doctor at home. Of course in the end this will require faith to believe. By design , as God wants to be partially hidden so we can have effectual free will.
As someone confirmed in the Catholic Church, using the argument that there is more historical evidence for Christianity doesn’t go all that far given we unfortunately only have records of the New Testament to around the 2nd century, the gospels weren’t authored by eyewitnesses, and as the gospels were written, the oldest gospels displayed Jesus as less divine and more human where as the newer ones tend to write more about miracles and such. Perhaps consider using the fine tuning argument instead?
My brothers and sisters in Christ, if you still don't know what's wrong with Pascal's Wager (and why Butler doesn't fix it), here are some tips: 1. It's not evidence for the existence of God. It provides a reason to believe in God (even if the belief is not epistemically rational). 2. Look up 'Pascal's mugging'. Focusing on the infinite reward of highly improbable cases is very counter-productive. 3. This video assumes Christianity is special, because it has some unique features. But those features are chosen ad-hoc. Other religions have also unique features, not found in Christianity. 4. It is assumed atheists and apostates have not considered the evidence carefully. Begging the question: why do you think that? 5. Finally, if you assume one cannot be convinced without the Holy Spirit, why blame the unbelievers and why do we need arguments?
Christianity is special. Unlike all other religions, Christianity is based on an actual real person and a historical event- the resurrection. All other religions of the world are based on ideals.
@cedward5718 Please. Was Muhammad a real person? Was prince Siddhartha a real person? I would say just as much as Jesus was. As for the Resurrection: it's a miracle claim. Can you find miracles in history with better evidence? If you say no, then maybe you are just not well-informed.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 Muhammad was an Arab warlord and never claimed to be God. Buddha was an Asian prince who contemplated the meaning of life and never claimed to be God. CS Lewis said Jesus was either crazy or who he claimed to be. The resurrection wasn't just any miracle... it was witnessed by many disciples who were persecuted and killed for preaching Christ and repentance. Liars don't die for a known lie. You, sir, are badly misinformed.
Most atheists are uniformed/lazy. Christians and other religions are guilty of this as well. It’s just that they have no belief system so not researching is I guess extra bad? And this does not reduce point in the video. Often religion leads people to a better life, what’s the cons of Atleast looking further into it? Just food for thought.
"Now, if Christianity is true, you gain truth, purpose, and eternal life" That's all true, of course, but if Christianity is true you also FOUND GOD. But not just any god - the true God who is a person you can not only have a relationship with, but who actively wants a relationship with you. That's such a huge deal and it's missing from both wagers.
What a deep thought! If Christianity is true, the god of Christianity is is the true god .... Wow... Amazing! So insightful. Definitely doesn't work with other religions. Let's try If Islam is true then the Islamic god is the true god .... Dang... It looks like it works for Islam too. Mmmm I wonder why
The most important thing in Pascal defence is that he didn't want his wager to be a compleate basis of worldview of any person, but rather a starting point to taking action, to "taste" christianity and then other arguments for it will come naturally. It was like "try to know Christ" rather than "this reasoning is all you need".
@@realdragon First: when it comes to Pascal, that wager was set for atheists he knew and they had very limited options to know Islam. Second: when it comes to contemporaty times, watch video above from 2:23 to 3:28. I mean, seriously; did you post your comment to mine before watching video it refers to? It sure looks like it.
@@mariuszgaaj2814 Flat earther died in make-shift rocket trying to prove Earth is flat, that must mean Earth is indeed flat because nobody would risk their life for a lie. And did you forget religious wars? Just because someone is willing to sacrifice their life for religion that doesn't mean that religion is true, not only Christians sacrificed themselves
@@realdragon I don't recall that argument as: death for belief = proof of belief. It is rather: death of believer for belief = proof that believer who died believed the belief. Those are circumstantial evidence; traces, not definitive evidence. Think of researching religion like detective researching crime scene, or a historian reading different sources describing one event. One trace is not enough, but when there is many of them, some versions of events seem more likely than others. Arguments for God's existence are like numbers or letters that are a part of a code to money safe: on their own they change little, but simultaneously they change a lot. It is extremely rare for people to change beliefs as broad as view on religion just because of one argument, it is rather a combination of arguments that make "click" and open one's "soul safe" to God. But remember, as long you believe that "that one specific irrefutable argument that makes everything clear to everyone" exist, the "click" is less likely to happen. It is like watching at Mona Lisa from quarter inch distance with magnifying glass and claiming, that you see no woman and just stains of paint. The thing is, one might know the part of a cipher, but recalls it wrongly (like you might heard correct argument about meaning of death of a believer). But good for you to watch videos like this one, hopefully you will see clearly the whole picture one day and became believer or well-informed critic of Christianity.
@@mariuszgaaj2814 You told me to watch video, but it seems you didn't understood it "People don't willingly suffer and die for something they know is a lie". Literal quote from video, but it applies to to other religions too
1. Equivocation on Religious Practice - Butler's Wager assumes religious practice is costless or low-cost, treating it as a "safe bet" - However, religious commitment often involves significant life changes, time investment, and opportunity costs - These costs undermine the claim that choosing religion is the rational "default" position 2. False Binary - The wager presents a simplified choice between generic theism and atheism - In reality, there are thousands of religions with competing claims and practices - Even if we accept the wager's logic, it doesn't help us choose which specific religion to follow - Following the wrong religion could be worse than no religion at all according to many faiths 3. Assuming Risk Neutrality - The wager implicitly assumes people should be risk-neutral about existential/religious claims - But many would argue we should proportion belief to evidence rather than potential consequences - Using Pascal/Butler-style reasoning could justify believing in any unlikely scenario with claimed infinite rewards 4. Problem of Divine Hiddenness - If a god exists and wants belief, why make belief a matter of pragmatic betting rather than clear evidence? - A truly benevolent deity might value authentic belief over pragmatic hedging - The wager seems to encourage insincere, calculated "belief" rather than genuine faith 5. Naturalistic Explanation - The appeal of the wager may stem from evolved risk-aversion and pattern-seeking rather than sound reasoning - Similar "better safe than sorry" logic could justify many superstitious practices - We generally reject this kind of reasoning in other domains of life 6. Question-Begging on Religious Claims - The wager takes for granted certain theological assumptions (e.g., that belief/practice affects afterlife outcomes) - These assumptions themselves require justification and can't be merely assumed - The logic breaks down if we reject these theological premises
1. Equivocation on Religious Practice Butler’s Wager doesn’t claim religious commitment is costless-it explicitly acknowledges costs but points out the stakes are infinitely higher if Christianity is true. Life changes? Sure, but eternity trumps opportunity costs every time. The “default” position isn’t blind faith-it’s taking Christianity seriously because it offers uniquely compelling evidence. 2. False Binary The wager doesn’t assume “generic theism.” It’s grounded in Christianity, which has evidence other religions lack-like the resurrection, proclaimed immediately in hostile settings by eyewitnesses. If you think other religions have comparable evidence, name one. You won’t, because they don’t. 3. Assuming Risk Neutrality No one’s asking you to be risk-neutral. Butler’s Wager is about proportioning your investigation to the stakes and evidence. Christianity has unique historical claims and infinite consequences. Ignoring it while entertaining “any unlikely scenario” isn’t reasoning-it’s avoiding the obvious. 4. Problem of Divine Hiddenness This isn’t about hedging bets; it’s about following the evidence. The “hiddenness” objection assumes God hasn’t left evidence, which ignores the historical basis of Christianity. The resurrection, for instance, is public, early, and hostilely attested-not exactly “hidden.” 5. Naturalistic Explanation If “better safe than sorry” logic justifies superstition, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Butler’s Wager is based on evidence, not arbitrary fears. Christianity isn’t a superstition-it’s a historically grounded faith with unique claims no other religion matches. 6. Question-Begging on Religious Claims Butler’s Wager doesn’t “assume” Christian theology-it invites investigation into whether Christianity’s claims hold up. If you dismiss the premises without engaging the evidence, you’re not critiquing the wager-you’re avoiding the challenge entirely. In short, these objections are a mix of strawmen and misunderstandings. Butler’s Wager isn’t about blind belief or shallow reasoning-it’s a call to serious, evidence-based inquiry. If you think these points refute it, you’re dodging the real argument. Try again. You're just proving that you need to take Butler's advice.
@@TestifyApologetics 1. On Religious Practice & Evidence * The claim of "uniquely compelling evidence" is circular - all religions claim unique evidence * The Nicene Creed itself was a political document created in 325 CE to enforce orthodoxy * It was literally voted on by bishops under Constantine's pressure * Many core Christian doctrines (Trinity, nature of Christ) weren't settled for centuries * Early Christians had wildly different beliefs before orthodox suppression 2. On Historical Claims * "Immediate proclamation by eyewitnesses" is false: * Paul's letters (earliest texts) contain no eyewitness accounts * Gospels written 40-70 years later by non-eyewitnesses * No contemporary Roman/Jewish records mention resurrection * Stories grew more supernatural over time (compare Mark vs John) 3. Other Religions' Claims: * Buddhism: Emperor Ashoka's inscriptions provide contemporary evidence * Islam: The Quran's compilation was better documented than the Bible * Mormonism: Has signed eyewitness statements for golden plates * Hinduism: Has continuous textual tradition older than Christianity * Zoroastrianism: Influenced Christianity's concepts of heaven/hell/Satan 4. Problems with "Historical Basis": * No original manuscripts exist * Earliest fragments are from 125-150 CE * Major textual variations between manuscripts * Known interpolations (e.g., longer ending of Mark) * Contradictions between Gospel accounts * Non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus) are later and disputed 5. On "Hostile Attestation": * No contemporary hostile sources exist * Later Roman mentions (Tacitus, Pliny) only describe Christian beliefs * Jewish sources (Josephus) show signs of Christian interpolation * No enemy accounts of resurrection despite claimed public nature * Why didn't Jewish leaders convert if evidence was compelling? 6. Evolution of Doctrine: * Early Christians disagreed on: * Jesus's divine nature * Relationship to Judaism * Resurrection (physical vs spiritual) * Scripture interpretation * Salvation requirements * Orthodox Christianity won through political power, not evidence The "Infinitely Higher Stakes" Problem: * Islam also claims infinite stakes * Hindu karma has eternal consequences * Buddhism warns of endless rebirths * Pascal's Wager applies equally to all these * Can't use stakes to determine truth Modern Scholarship Shows: * Most NT books are pseudepigraphical * Gospels contain fictional literary devices * Christian doctrine developed gradually * Pagan influences on Christianity * Natural evolution of beliefs Butler's Wager rests on historically inaccurate assumptions about Christian origins and uniqueness. The evidence points to Christianity as a human movement that evolved through natural historical processes, not divine revelation.
@@TestifyApologetics I'm pretty sure I had another comment that got deleted here. You have three motives: One because of money, another because of fame/prestige, and the last because of "Heaven". Also, I'm not an atheist, I am a panentheist. A much more coherent ideology than the naïve desert religion of Christianity
Bro !!!! Catholic here -- Wasn't familiar with Butler; but, long time viewer, subscriber, and appreciator of your channel. You've done lots of great videos but this video may be my favorite... Excellent ! I have thought something like this so many times. This fleshed it out in a very succinct kind of way. It would be *very* cool to see a video that parses out and compares several of these religions' claims, in a slower, more thorough way, to drive this point home even farther. Thanks !
If I recall, Pascal's wager was created when he was talking to friends, this upgrade to work on a larger scale is really just the natural conclusion of Pascal's wager
Idk man. The only truth that I've learned in life is that everything that is true feels uncomfortable. It's too comfortable that there's a God that loves me so much that he sent his son to die for me. This most essential belief of Christianity sounds like deception.
Gang I'm an atheist, not an antitheist. I won't do all of that simply for the fact that I actually don't feel like it. To believe in "the resurrection of Jesus Christ," I would have to believe in everything else throughout the Bible. The Israelite slaves in Egypt, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, even more smaller issues. I will never believe in Christianity, or probably any other religion again, simply because I would have to reject my already sturdy knowledge (and beliefs) about the world. It would all be a waste of time if I were actually to thoroughly investigate it.
My Bible teacher in school did this He grew up Christian but left the faith, then, at a low point in his life, he decided to search for the truth, he found out that Christianity is the only worldview to make sense and be true, now he is a great pastor, apologist, and teacher
@@haitaelpastor976 why would an infinite God have to fit in human understanding, if anything, the complexity of Christianity is proof that it is true Plus, the understanding of our God isn't how you disprove or prove Christianity, it's about the evidence and facts of the life of Jesus And if you really want to prove to me Christianity is wrong, do one thing, disprove the resurrection of Christ, because without it, our faith is meaningless (and I'll give you a hint, you can't disprove the resurrection)
@@haitaelpastor976 --- You mean the one who commanded Israelite soldiers to slaughter infants, and allowed masters to savagely beat their slaves with impunity because they're their "property"? Who commanded the execution of gay men? The same god who is said to have drowned untold numbers of newborns and toddlers in a worldwide flood? That god?
Pascal wager was also not about forcing belief. He also gives reasons why Christianity is more reasonable and explains the world better than say Islam. I suggest anyone who has the misguided view that Pascal was trying to tell people just to force themselves into belief to read Peenses. It's the collection of writings he was working on when he died that actually includes his arguments and thoughts on the matter. What confuses me is that a few years ago I think I remember this channel making a video debunking some of the same misconceptions about Pascals wager that this video promotes. Maybe it was a different channel and I am misremembering, but I would be interested in hearing what changed the owner of this channels mind about Pascals wager if it was indeed him.
@Th3BigBoy Yes, it confuses me in this place as I could have sworn Testify did a video just a few years back about how Athiests misunderstand that wager and directly refuted multiple points he makes in this very video. Kinda strange.
Talk about missing the point. Butler’s Wager *specifically* avoids blind gambling by prioritizing investigation into the religion with the strongest evidence-Christianity. If you think “countless others” have comparable evidence based on the criteria I laid out in the video and specifically spelled out in the video in the end screen, feel free to name one. Spoiler: you can’t.
@@TestifyApologetics "Evidence" for Christianity is so unbelievably poor, and cherrypicked. You have decided that the evidence for your religion is better than everyone else's. (Spoiler alert, everyone thinks that) Furthermore, it is easy for me to say that countless others have equitable evidence, because they all have just about 0. Beyond the bible, (The very same book making the claim) and all your other claims (Again all found in the bible, once again the book making the claim), you have none. This is remarkably poor evidence
I mostly disagree with this video. First of all, you keep addressing Pascals Wager as an argument for belief in Christianity, its an argument for being a Theist, you can use Pascals Wager whether you are Muslim Christian Theist etc, its not exclusive to Christianity. Second of all, I dont have a problem with Pascals Wager as an argument for being a theist, however I do have a problem with it being an argument for God, since it isn't really an argument for God, but its an argument for believing in God, which are different things.
He was addressing Butler's Wager throughout most of it
10 วันที่ผ่านมา +20
Like most points made on this channel, the "stronger evidence for miracles" argument is deeply dishonest. Every religion that ever "won out", as it were, and became established, quite obviously did so against an equal amount of skepticism and hostility. That Christianity *definitely* made miraculous claims from the start and Buddhism or Islam only *probably* did so, is not a testament to Christianity's truth, only to Christianity's spotlight, and to the literary refinement of the pagan Hellenistic world where it originated. It's still almost certainly not true that Buddhism or Islam started out being perfectly materialistic and void of any supernatural claims. What you have shown is a very shallow difference in (not even a comparative lack of) evidence, which, say it with me now, isn't evidence of absence. If I were to accept this argument, then I should start with Aum Shinrikyo, since for them the evidence that they made miraculous claims from the start is even stronger than it is for Christianity: the gap isn't hundreds of years as with Zoroaster, it's not even a few decades as with Christ, it's zero, the gap is zero years because the earliest reliable evidence we have of that is contemporary. So, using the criteria suggested in the video, I would sift through hundreds of doctrines before getting to Christianity. Dozens, even if I reject religions that didn't "win out" and those that don't conform to the wager, i.e. don't assert themselves as the sole and irreplaceable truth. But suppose I start with Christianity anyway. How much of my time and effort should I dedicate to researching it? Reading one more book, considering one more argument etc will always be a very moderate amount of effort compared to the rewards of being genuinely converted. So it's an exact replica of a gambler's train of thought- the cost of a lottery ticket is negligible compared to possible winnings, right? But, exactly like with a lottery, before evaluating properly whether considering Christianity is a good wager for you or not, you need to know in advance >the probability of your conversion< - otherwise the average winnings are impossible to calculate. This doesn't apply to Pascal's wager, because in it you're definitely converting right away- with Butler, you're merely *trying* to get converted, which means no amount of consideration will definitely get you the desired result. You can spend your whole life reading patristic literature and remain an atheist, as, no doubt, many people did. So when should you stop?
1. "Christianity only succeeded because of Hellenistic literary refinement." This is laughable. Christianity wasn’t born in some cushy cultural spotlight-it exploded out of a marginalized, persecuted group in a Roman-occupied backwater. It wasn’t Hellenistic refinement that propelled it; it was the bold, public proclamation of a risen Jesus, made in the very city where He was crucified, under hostile scrutiny. Compare that to Buddhism’s centuries-later miracle stories or Islam’s belated hadith collections. Not the same. 2. "Every religion faced equal skepticism and hostility." No, they didn’t. Christianity spread in a context where claiming Jesus as Lord was a death sentence under Roman law. Apostles weren’t spreading rumors for clout; they were imprisoned, tortured, and executed for their firsthand testimony. That’s not the story of “every religion”-it’s unique to Christianity. 3. "Aum Shinrikyo is a better fit for the wager." Oh, please. Aum Shinrikyo’s claims are contemporary, sure-but they were demonstrably fraudulent, tied to a dangerous cult leader, and rejected by their own culture. Meanwhile, Christianity’s claims-like the resurrection-are rooted in public, hostilely attested history and transformed the Roman world. False equivalence much? 4. "When should I stop investigating Christianity?" When you can steelman its arguments and demonstrate you’ve honestly considered its unique claims. Until then, you’re the gambler avoiding the ticket booth while complaining about the odds. The cost of investigating Christianity is small; the stakes are infinite. You can laugh at that logic, but you’ve yet to refute it. If you spent as much time investigating Christianity as you did writing this pseudo-intellectual rant, you might actually have answers instead of excuses. Try harder.
10 วันที่ผ่านมา +15
@@TestifyApologetics I appreciate that you took time to reply at all, considering the total number of comments under your videos, however your reply doesn't actually address (or appear to understand) a single point I have made beyond simply reiterating what you stated in the video, so I will not be engaging in this conversation any further. Cheers.
@@TestifyApologetics You ask for a steelmanned argument, yet none will satisfy you. I ask for a standard of evidence, and none presented to date has satisfied me. I guess you'll go on being a disappointment to god for failing to convert non-christians and i'll go on happily with my beliefs without feeling the need to test them against random internet people as though my relationship with spirituality isn't secure. I was interested in seeing some good discussion, but your attitude is just deplorable. It's like you actually think less of people who are willing to engage with your challenge and come out the other side of it still wanting to have a discussion. I'll just close this out with a question that I'd like you to reflect on: For what reason do you study apologetics other than vanity? I won't be replying because a.) I don't care, and b.) i can't be bothered. Which both say something, considering I've read your book of stories in its entirety several times, alongside analyses of historical works that corroborate the existence of Jesus, the man.
2:30 I'd like to test your knowledge of this: can you, without looking, tell who announced it (kind, gender, number, pose) and how many women saw that?
@TheFullAutomaticShermanShow I think you've confused some things. There were two angels in the tomb, but only one actual witness. She discovered that the tomb was empty and brought some disciples, but Jesus came to her when she was alone. It's in John 20
@TestifyApologetics I wasn't participating in any challenge. I was just testing your knowledge. But now I'd like to see the video. How can one easily find it?
Can you explain why Christians should not also apply 'Butler's Wager' to all other religions? Even if you believe Christianity is true over atheism, how can you be sure it is preferable to any other religion without a deep and in depth understanding of all other religions. The same logic applies: small cost of entry, huge stakes. If you haven't deeply researched all other religions and fairly come to the conclusion that a single religion is the most likely to be true, you're not really any different to an athiest who's never read or cared about Christianity. Ultimately, this line of reasoning leads to a flaw in Butler's Wager in my opinion, similar to flaws in utilitarian thinking. In the same way people don't donate all their life savings to charity, even though this would maximise happiness, it's not reasonable to ask people to dedicate their entire lives to studying all religions in great depth to maximise their chance of a positive afterlife.
@@TestifyApologetics No it's not. You made some very weak arguments for why Christianity should be the 'first' religion to look into, but you didn't make any argument as to why you should stop there. If all you ever did to secure yourself in your faith was to look at which religions had the most outrageous claims about miricles, and then rudely depict all other religions gods as wojaks, you don't have a very strong basis for your faith. You also provided no reasoning as to why your criterion (the time since the leading figures death that claims about their miricles were made) is the best to judge a religion by. Why not age, or volume of scripture, or historical references. You arbitrarily picked a criteria to judge religions by, declared Christianity the winner, and patted yourself on the back.
Ive always read pascals wager as "if youre in a room on fire, and theres 100 doors in front of you, even if you think each of those doors leads to more fire, no one would refuse to open at least one of the doors for the chance that theres a way out." Its not an argument for the existence of God, its an argunent for why religion has any sort of personal value. It gives you hope.
This argument fails immediately if the person you're using it on doesn't agree that the evidence for Christianity is "uniquely strong" among the infinite other conceivable religions. You wouldn't convince any atheist I know this way. Maybe some agnostics who are on the fence about christianity specifically. But it's hardly a solution to the problem of many gods. Also, the argument presented from 2:20 onward is very weak. The gospels (which were not even developed by eyewitnesses) become more miracle-filled the later they were written, just like the other religions mentioned. Further, just because someone puts themself at risk to testify something does not make their wild paradoxical claims any more true. I would recommend everyone watch "the impossible game" by ThereminTrees on this topic.
You really should take my advice-this is genuinely bad. Name one non-Christian miracle claim that avoids being distant from its origin, aligns with no preexisting biases, is detailed and specific, reported immediately, serves a significant purpose, and isn’t self-serving. Spoiler: that’s what sets Christianity apart from the pack. You’re ignoring the fact that I’ve got two playlists with over 30 videos unpacking why the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. The whole “legendary development” narrative? It’s been repeatedly debunked and left in shreds. I have the receipts, just ask me. The fact that you can’t even steelman the argument shows just how badly you need to engage seriously with this. And then you drop Theramin Trees? Bro, that’s your source? A guy who couldn’t steelman Christianity if his life depended on it? Yeah, you definitely need to rethink your approach.
@@TestifyApologetics The gospels don't contain eyewitness accounts, even most new testament scholars agree on that. And even, for the sake of argument, let's say they did: No rational person would take personal testimony as good enough evidence for the miraculous suspension of the laws of nature. Especially not when such claims were so common in that era. It seems like you can't even steelman your own argument if that's the evidence you want to use to convince people. And mate, Theremin's video isn't just about Christianity, it's about all the religions that think they're special and everyone else is wrong. Maybe you would learn something from watching it.
@@TestifyApologetics Not blocking inquiry at all. Simply stating that if you want to convince anyone of your religion, it is more reasonable for you to present evidence that your god exists than it is for you to "challenge" others to waste their own time searching for it. If you had any actual evidence this would be easy for you. Unfortunately you don't because the omnipotent, timeless christian god concept isn't even logically coherent.
if a miracle happened in the past, how would you know if there is never enough testimony to overcome a low prior? You can't see that's an epistemic hole that you can't dig yourself out of?
Isn't this argument applicable to other religions as well? If you investigate other false religions, you only lose time, but you gain the truth if the religion is true.
There needs to be a good reason to investigate a religion. Christianity has miracle claims that are early, close to the events, and in the face of opposition. These claims separate Christianity from other religions. If other religions can pass the same criteria, then we should investigate them too.
@@TestifyApologetics correct me if I'm wrong, but miracles themselves say nothing about who or what caused them, nor do they increase the reliability of anyone who claimed to be the source of the miracle (as you can't really show that it's him/her that caused the miracle). Besides, just because someone firmly believes in something to the point they give up their live for it it doesn't mean that what they believe is correct.
i literally address the texas sharpshooter fallacy in the video I link at the endscreen. you should try watching it. it's not my fault that there's good evidence for what I believe.
@@TestifyApologetics Besides the fact that it's is a little portion in the end of the linked video, it's also just asserting that the arguments presented were free from the influence of sharpshooter fallacy rather than actually explaining how.
All Butler is really saying is, because the consequences of being wrong are grave, you should invest time in giving it a fair shake. I would say there is nothing wrong with exploring, learning about, and investigating religions.(regardless of the potential consequences to being wrong,) and If doing so compels you to believe one of them, then so be it. Though this could really be summed up in a far more general way. Don't be a slave to bigotry (in the context of being irrationally committed to your opinions,) and avoid confirmation bias. That goes for anything, consequences of being wrong aside.
Man this video could’ve been really good if you didn’t insist on Christianity over all other religions. As far as I’m concerned butler’s wager applies evenly to all religions and the only good reason to pick Christianity first is because one of them has to be. I almost wish this was just a video encouraging people to study theology in general
So Pascal's wager with an added "Educate yourself" tacked on. I've gone through so many apologetic books from "evidential" stuff like Case for Christ to more philosophical attempts like Is God Real . I've even had Darth Dawkins run his presup on me and suffered through Van Til's The Defense of the Faith. At the end of the day the only argument I give a nod to is personal experience. Other peoples experience is not evidence for me, but it would be for them so if that's why someone believes I see no problem with it. Beyond that, from the historical to the philosophical I would say there is no reason to believe in Christianity being true.
I'm sorry, but your comment suggests that you have a very shallow understanding of what I'm talking about in this video. Clearly Butler is suggesting the polar opposite of presuppositional apologetics, which assumes it's conclusions from the outset. I recommend that you read the books listed in the description. Also, please note that Lee Strobel's book is barely an introduction to this topic. If you read only that far, then you didn't go very far.
@@TestifyApologetics Of your list I've only read a few. Lewis, Pitre and Blombergs book on John. If you consider those compelling I'm afraid the rest will not help here. You may like their arguments. Honestly I was interested in Blombergs attempt to defend John as historical (that's an insane idea, but he makes a good go at it regardless. I respect the attempt). The substance is no better to me than Strobel. People who have a faith and are trying desperately to find reasons for it. That's the core issue with apologetics, the presups are just more direct about it. None of their arguments are moving at all, because they all start form the assumption that their beliefs are correct. People who convert don't do so because of these books, these books are for people who already believe. That's why they are written by theologians like Pitre and Blomberg instead of historians. People convert due to personal reasons. Loved ones. Experiences. Community. I originally became an atheist because a Sunday school teacher told me I would burn in hell for eternity if I didn't accept Jesus. Now I've studied quite a bit of philosophy over the three decades after that event so I can argue my position, but I do that for fun.
Bruv. Saying "I read some books" without pointing out what is wrong with the contents and then moving into some armchair psychoanalysis isn't a rebuttal. It's lazy.
@@TestifyApologetics Ah, so now we move on from the "you read the wrong books" to the "you didn't address specific issues in my books" part of this. I'm not here to pull apart your favorite books. I'm responding to your wager. I've looked into it, found the arguments and evidence for Christianity insufficient and that's really it. No matter what the wager is anything multiplied by zero is zero. That's the chance in my mind of your religion corresponding to reality. I figured I would try to talk a bit like a person and communicate some personal stuff, talk about what I think the reason for all the books feeling the same to me is but I guess that's armchair psychoanalysis. In any case I didn't mean to make you defensive. I guess that means you're doing the apologist thing correctly though. In any case I'll leave you with a quote from my favorite book: "Don't live as if you had endless years ahead of you. Death overshadows you. While you're alive and able - be good."
I don't have any issues with being intellectually open to Christianity or Theism broadly but the challenge doesn't really do the work that Pascal's Wager does. There's issues with Pascal's Wager but at least the conclusion of it is going to be something like 'Therefore you ought to believe Christianity is true' or 'You have reasons against taking a non-Christian view', but this challenge doesn't have a conclusion by the very nature of it being a challenge rather than an argument.
really? how many well-informed atheist critics do you know? can you name a few. I can think of only a handful, and even they stumble on the historical argument.
@@TestifyApologetics What "historical argument?" That "evidence" for the ultimate creator of life, the universe, and everything can be found in some obscure text in some dead language. C'mon man, there are plenty of "well-informed" atheist scholars and there are plenty of "well-informed" Christian scholars. Which is exactly what we would expect if the "historical argument" was inconclusive, at best.
I used to think Sam Harris was at least an honest new atheist but then he went and said a parable was Jesus telling people to go slaughter unbelievers.
@@TestifyApologetics You say Christianity is "public, early, and bold," and therefore "it makes more sense to start with Christianity," (3:21). This is your "steelman," right? Even if I grant that those characteristics differentiate Christianity from other religions, I don't see why any of them are particularly important, but again, for the sake of argument. I'm no scholar of ancient texts, but other people are, and they don't agree on the extent to which public proclamations of Jesus's resurrection were particularly notable. Besides, proclamations of a resurrection are not evidence of a resurrection. Those made those proclamations did so in a hostile environment, apparently. But even if they did, that doesn't make the proclamations true. Even today we see people make "proclamations" in hostile environments, so its hardly surprising. At best, it shows that these people believed their proclamations, but again, so what? That doesn't make the proclamations true. You fault other major religions for being written down long after the events took place, but its unclear why that should be a problem. Besides, even the most generous accounts put the gospels as being written at least decades after the events took place. If its a problem, its a problem for Christianity as well, if its not, then you have no reason no to "deeply investigate" other religions as well. At the end of the day, it seems to me clearly a pretense that Christianity is substantially different than any other religion, and the 'reasons" to believe Christianity are no better than the reasons to believe any other religion. Personally, I like the way Richard Rorty put it, "religion dates to a time in human history when the conditions of life were so bleak and the prospect of improvement was so remote that people took refuge in fantasy. But now we realize that we can pin our hopes on nothing more than the prospect of a better life for future humans."
You cannot rightly disregard so many other religions’ boldest miracle claims because they came centuries after the fact while praising the supposed miracles of Jesus. They have the same problem! When it comes to the bible, the earlier the text was written, the more Jesus’ stories made him out to be a normal guy. The later you go, the more supernatural he becomes.
Ive always dunked on pascals wager. And it was the real life institution of Butlers wager that got me to christianity. My then fiance demanded of me that i *TRY* to believe. And after a time of investigation, i did.
A bishop stands at the pulpit and starts with his sermon: "my flock, today, we are going to talk about our daily bread". A flock of geese sitting in the pews, rise up their wings in excitement and shout "testify brother!! testify!!!"
It is clear that you spent more time trying to edit in the gigachad and soyjak templates than to actually come up with a decent "challenge". Nice bait though.
As a someone who started as a Christian and actually believing that God was real and praying every day and going to church every Sunday. As well as all my friends and family doing the same thing since I am from a religious and third world country. I was extremely serious with what I was believing in and it took me awhile to break away from the toxic relationship which was about age 19. The main reason which atheists almost never uses and another supplementary reason for Abrahamic religions. The main reason is, if there is a God that is just and all-good then there is no need to believe or know this God. That is all. Assuming we are talking about a just and all-good God as well as all-powerful. The first problem would be the afterlife he would see what you have done and judge you according to that and create a punishment equal to what you have done. NOT automatically put you in hell for not worshipping or believing in him. The thought of a God who created everything as big as the biggest star and as small as a quark with all the complexities of the universe would want worship and belief is laughable. That is a HUMAN trait, it is what a human would want and that's why people think it's what God wants. That's why it's called a MAN-made religion. Not to mention if he really wanted that then he would've made all humans inclined to worship him and only him (yes free will blah blah we will get into that) as well as made himself known and easier to find (like the sun, some Carlin references). The supplementary reason is, I will touch on the topic quickly. The all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing contradict each other. The omnipotence paradox is too easy. If he's all-knowing then he knows the future thereby knowing what you will do and would invalidate your free will. No free will means he let evil do its thing. Even assuming that free will is present, there is still evil such as natural disasters earthquakes the movement of tectonic plates are not caused by man's free will. Even if it was, there is still evil which would contradict all-good. One has to give out of the three.
"The main reason is, if there is a God that is just and all-good then there is no need to believe or know this God. That is all. Assuming we are talking about a just and all-good God as well as all-powerful. "` Hell is a willing disconnect from God. He will not force you to be with Him. "The thought of a God who created everything as big as the biggest star and as small as a quark with all the complexities of the universe would want worship and belief is laughable. That is a HUMAN trait," God is a person. A perfect person as far as we know, but He still desires love. While we can have the gift of knowing why we are here, or how we got here. God may not. God simply exists, He simply is, and will be, forever. How long has He existed ... alone ? He made us for His love. And we rejected Him and killed Him brutally. " The all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing contradict each other. The omnipotence paradox is too easy. If he's all-knowing then he knows the future thereby knowing what you will do and would invalidate your free will. "` I agree, but this is not the only possibility. I've been thinking that God knows contingent futures, based on respecting our free will. He chooses to respect our free will, because He can be as powerful as He wants, but you can never force love.
@@standard-user-name "Hell is a willing disconnect from God. He will not force you to be with Him." What does this have to do with judging based on what you do good? You are still saying that no belief = hell which is not a just nor a good God which I don't mind going to hell for, because that God is evil what's the point in worshipping in him. Don't forget that other people who are unaware of his existence get the same outcome. "God is a person. A perfect person as far as we know, but He still desires love." Your definition of God has very human limitations, this is the first time I have heard of it. Not worshipping does not mean rejection or killing him brutally. Okay so, He made us so that he has someone to interact with. Then... interact/talk with people then? Let me ask you a question then, if you imagine a couple that love each other or you loving someone. Tell me, do you imagine one worshipping and praising the other while the other person wants and is addicted to more worship. "I agree, but this is not the only possibility. I've been thinking that God knows contingent futures, based on respecting our free will." This is the first time I have read a theist agree with this straight up and not argue. The point still stands because he still knows the future. The only way is if he doesn't know the future. Contingent futures is how we think. From the word all-knowing, He already knows what you will do, in the same way you will respond to this comment. I don't know if you will or not (contingent futures) but he knows you will do and knows exactly what words (future).
Okay I considered Christianity and is still unverifiable claims written in a book not by eye witnesses but anonymous people that weren’t alive when supposed events took place. The only challenge is to take people who use the soyjack memes unironically seriously.
@Theo_Skeptomai well some idiots crushed into the twin towers in promise of an eternal brothel. Just because they died doesn't mean their promise land is true
@@And_stuff8as the video states, the difference is that they didn’t live during the time their prophet lived and claim to bear direct witness to his miracles
@@I_TacocatBut the problem is that we don't know how most of the apostoles died and even the ones who did die by the sword we don't relly know if they realy had the chance to go back on their beliefs. A second possibility is that the apstopes did belithat jesus rose but that doe sot mean it happened
Cannot even tell what kind of trolling is happening here. Calling mere investigation circular is absurd-are you saying examining evidence for a claim somehow assumes its truth? That’s not circularity; that’s basic critical thinking. Plz tell me I'm missing something
@@PitchBlack0000 The claim isn’t just based on the Bible itself but also on historical evidence and common sense reasoning. For example, we know from Roman historians like Tacitus and Suetonius that Christians were persecuted under the Roman Empire, often facing execution for their beliefs. Despite this, Christianity spread rapidly, even among people who had little to gain and much to lose by converting. This persistence suggests that the early Christians truly believed in the resurrection of Jesus-something they claimed to have witnessed firsthand. While it’s true that people can die for false beliefs, it’s harder to explain why so many would willingly face death if they knew what they were promoting was a deliberate fabrication. This doesn’t prove Jesus performed miracles, but it supports the idea that the early Christians’ convictions were rooted in what they genuinely believed to be true, even under extreme pressure. That is not circular reasoning, and nowhere does he even state something remotely to that. I believe only two apostles were recorded to have died in the Bible the rest are outside sources. If you want more evidence take a look into Bible archaeology
@@JosephBoooyif those evidences are good enough there is no need for a wager you just become christian. And other people died for their believe and religion all the time its not exclusive to christianity. This video targets atheism but never talks about why should anyone pick christianity over atheism by choosing christianity to investigate you are presupposing that there is a God its a circular logic. If this investigation is based on evidence atheism is more logical choice since you have support of all science behind it. Its better to study and learn about natural physics and its has waaay more evidence than christianity
Pascal's Wager fails because it was written for a very specific scenario, and you're probably misapplying it. The entering argument is that you have already eliminated other gods from consideration.
Perhaps that is why when I grew up, Christians didn't want to face the concept of eastern religions. Doing so would show Pascal's Wager to be a false dichotomy between atheism and Jesus. Over the past few years, I joked about the idea of reducing atheism by selling shintoism to weebs and otakus.
Hey Testify! You ever plan on doing videos on Hinduism and Buddhism? If you don’t, do you have any sources I can look into? I can’t even find many sources explaining the basics of these religions. Thanks
Well yes, that is like criticizing something about something for being exactly what it is supposed to be.... what to do in the case of effectively a blind gamble. That is kinda the point. It makes strong philosophical and pedagogical points, but no it shouldn't be the entire basis actually of your faith or apologetic.
@@jackattackhissnack Which doesn't really apply because there is nothing intrinsically wrong or worth criticizing with a risk assessment in a "blind gamble" situation because it is a risk assessment in a blind gamble situation. The problem is it just gets over-applied to things more than it should be, not that it is what it is lol.
This is what I'm trying to do right now, I was originally brought up Protestant Christian, then left the religion because I couldn't see why it would make sense. I got to the point where I was trapped in an echo chamber of my own beliefs, so I've been trying to open up to other worldviews, and understanding arguments, and I still believe religion is not the correct answer, but I now understand other people's views more effectively.
God founded a Church, not a book. Among other suggestions, I will suggest Trent Horn on TH-cam. David Wood too. For books I strongly recommend "Science at the Doorstep to God". And there's also GK Chesterton. I grew up Catholic, fell in part for new atheist nonsense, but have recently come back to Catholicism. In less than a year He's helped clean my house, my soul, so much, it is incredible.
@@standard-user-name God did not found the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing even remotely resembling Catholicism existed until hundreds of years after Christ, and even then that organization was nothing like the Roman Catholic Church of today; you'd consider their beliefs heretical and they'd consider yours heretical. The Roman Catholic Church, and all of its unique teachings, formed slowly over time long after Christ. You can track when certain beliefs first crept up, when they became more popular, and when they became the official views of the RCC (like worshiping Mary, praying to the dead, etc). Do you think performing traditions made by men will save your soul? Do you know what God said in His word about this? "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men." If you think equating man-made traditions as somehow being teachings from God is valid then your worship of God is in vain. As God encourages us in His word to do, read the Bible for yourself and believe what He tells us in it. If you do this then you will certainly be a Christian, but you certainly wont be a Catholic.
@@standard-user-name You said "God founded a Church, not a book." So think the Bible isn't God's inspired word? Do you not see the issue with your "I'm totally a "Christian" but I don't belive that icky yucky Bible thing, gross!" attitude? Jesus Himself said scripture speaks of Him. If you don't belive scripture it's because you don't believe what it speaks of, IE you don't believe in the real Jesus. The scriputre that Jesus said speaks of Him also says God Himself said "In vaid do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of man." If you think that observing man-made traditions will somehow bring you salvation then you're dead wrong. The scripture that Jesus said speaks of Him also says that there is only one single mediator between God and man, and that's Jesus Himself. Between you and God there's just Jesus, only Jesus, and no one else but Jesus. When the Catholic church claims that in order to get to God you need to first go through a Catholic priest, Mary, dead saints, etc they're contradicting God. The Catholic church is essnetially saying "Don't believe that lying liar Jesus who says you don't need we human beings in order to access God." Also, you said "God founded a Church..." It is a 100% certain fact of history that Jesus and his disciples had absolutely no involvement with founding the Roman Catholic Church that didn't exist until centuries after they died. You've put your faith in a 100% certaint-to-be-false lie of history. Misplaced faith is in vain and brings no salvation; your faith is in a lie made by man. The only faith that brings salvation is that which is placed in the real person of Jesus, and the one and only way anyone today can know who of the real person Jesus is by reading His word that He inspired to be written. God Himself wrote you the Bible and you reject it; at this rate when He juedges you He will say, as He inspired His word to say, "Depart from me, you worker of lawlessness. I never knew you." The Catholic church saves no one; only God can save you. Your faith is int the Catholic church, not God. Pray to God, not to human beings like Mary, for guidence and forgiveness of your foolishness. Pray to God and God alone that He might show you the Truth.
@@standard-user-name You said "God founded a Church, not a book." So think the Bible isn't God's inspired word? Do you not see the issue with your "I'm totally a "Christian" but I don't belive that icky yucky Bible thing, gross!" attitude? Jesus Himself said scripture speaks of Him. If you don't belive scripture it's because you don't believe what it speaks of, IE you don't believe in the real Jesus. The scriputre that Jesus said speaks of Him also says God Himself said "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of man." If you think that observing man-made traditions will somehow bring you salvation then you're dead wrong. The scripture that Jesus said speaks of Him also says that there is only one single mediator between God and man, and that's Jesus Himself. Between you and God there's just Jesus, only Jesus, and no one else but Jesus. When the Catholic church claims that in order to get to God you need to first go through a Catholic priest, Mary, dead saints, etc they're contradicting God. The Catholic church is essnetially saying "Don't believe that lying liar Jesus who says you don't need we human beings in order to access God." Also, you said "God founded a Church..." It is a 100% certain fact of history that Jesus and his disciples had absolutely no involvement with founding the Roman Catholic Church that didn't exist until centuries after they died. You've put your faith in a 100% certaint-to-be-false lie of history. Misplaced faith is in vain and brings no salvation; your faith is in a lie made by man. The only faith that brings salvation is that which is placed in the real person of Jesus, and the one and only way anyone today can know who of the real person Jesus is by reading His word that He inspired to be written. God Himself wrote you the Bible and you reject it; at this rate when He juedges you He will say, as He inspired His word to say, "Depart from me, you worker of lawlessness. I never knew you." The Catholic church saves no one; only God can save you. Your faith is int the Catholic church, not God. Pray to God, not to human beings like Mary, for guidence and forgiveness of your foolishness. Pray to God and God alone that He might show you the Truth.
3:33 "You gain a stronger more informed understanding" 1. Quite some christians hardly understand what they believe. 2. It's possible to gain that understanding without becoming a christian. 3. I could have used the spend time to study topics I think more important and interesting.
@@marknieuweboer8099 These seem more like excuses for continuing strawmanning Christianity than logical reasons to avoid it. The first thing you listed is literally a fallacy.
1. That’s a straw man fallacy 2. Christianity is a result of the attempt to gain such understanding in researching it. 3. Seriously? What can be more important than your eternity?
@ MusicM: Christianity is a religion, not an argument. So claiming that I "strawman christianity" is nonsense in the most literal meaning of the word. Worse, I didn't make any claim against any aspect of christianity, only against a claim presented in this video. The logical fallacy is yours. Try again.
@ Creep: 1. Nope, it's a fact relevant for the assertion I quoted. This epic failure of yours makes clear that you're not to be taken seriously. So I didn't bother to read the rest of your comment. A quarter of a century of internet experience has taught me that it only can get worse. Try again.
The things about Pascal's Wager is that it's a final decider at the end of a long argument, and that long argument isn't really complete to begin with. It's the conclusion, and not the summation, of Pensees; but that work is simply the compilation of notes of a book Blaise Pascal was working on at the time of his death.
I’m genuinely curious how slavery in the Bible is defensible, every video I’ve watched on the topic it seems like the Christian defending the Bible is losing bad. maybe I am misunderstanding but it seems like god is allowing slavery and even providing rules for it. Actual question for anyone who’d like to respond btw
@@landonwhite7962 the pasages talking about rules of slavery are here to restrain somethung that exist anyway : if slavery has to exist, then it's better if it is done 'in the right way' if I can say, and don't just make a massacre. Additionally, the Exode and how God treated the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews is, I think, a clear example that He doesn't like slavery.
The OT wasn't supposed to be a perfect moral code, rather it was supposed to be progressing humans morally, which is why when you compare the slavery in the OT to the slavery around those times, its far better. Ultimately God was preparing hearts for the Messiah to come with a new and better covenant
@despot1zer0 since you seem to be all knowing, what would you have done and how can you guarantee it would've worked? Not only during that time but also for thousands of years in the future. God didn't need to help humanity, He chose to help humanity. Again the OT wasn't morally perfect, rather it was to progress humanity, it sounds like you didn't read my comment.
The problem with Batler's wager is it is not clear what is enaugh. 1 hour. 10 hours. 100 hours. 1000 hours? And which one of Christianities. There are like 45,000 denominations of Christianity.
Faith as a matter of any kind of cost/benefit analysis sounds very much like ' “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. ' Matthew 7:21
Mr Manning, I think you've given the popular version of Pascal's Wager. Pascal doesn't think belief is like a switch; he states that behaving as if one believes is the best way to find faith for someone who has doubts. Pascal further claims that the effort in behaving as if one believes makes one a better person than one have been otherwise, so there is actually no cost to someone who takes that part of the wager. I love your channel and pray for you by name every night. Please, go back and take a look at a good translation of the what Pascal actually wrote. You'll find that what you have presented in your video is not addressing what Pascal actually wrote.
Because we would all go to hell for we deserve it. I think God gave me a fair chance with my free will and, even if I'm not the worst guy ever, I did enough, and everyone with me, to get in hell if we are judged that way. But Jesus-Christ, the living God, a perfect being, died for our sins so we don't have to be punished for them. Now we just have the choice to accept this gift and be with Gld, or to reject it so we will go to hell because rejecting God is rejecting the perfect good and the absence of perfect good is hell.
@@UnKoalaRouge Why do we deserve to go to hell. I mean sure all of us did some mistakes in our lives but I don't think these mistakes are worthy of eternal punishment
@@rahulpaul147 I mean, it's for God judge this. And we anyway would deserve a punishment for what we did. God is just : he wouldn't just let us be after the bad things we did, we must face the consequences of our actions. But in his love he decided to take this punishment on himself
0:54 how is this different? Why not study Buddhism instead? Lol The real issue one needs to consider and concern themselves with is that 99% of the gods you pick are chill, but the Christians have an evil god you must obey, so as a gamble, do you want to worship the evil god?
@@ExistenceUniversity No, no it doesn’t. Even the scientific method makes assumptions in order to exist. This is the crackers in the pantry fallacy, you cannot answer everything with science.
@@ExistenceUniversity first of all no it doesn’t, second of all even if that were the case you can show what good or bad morals are through science, so who are you to say my God is evil, it’s all subjective under your world view.
Well, I think there are several questions that still stand about this. What about a tribes-person who never had an opportunity to learn about Christianity? That would also mean they would go unbaptised, which would leave them unable to enter heaven, yes? In this case, I do not think there are any chances of probability for the tribes-person to learn about Christianity and also enter heaven. They may also unknowingly contradict the law of God without even knowing about it. I am open for debate, though. Please educate me about this if you can.
I don't think pascal's wager was ever supposed to be an argument for Christianity, rather, against atheism. Helps some atheists see how pointless a lack of belief is. Like a stepping stone toward religion
It also shows that Christianity is a protection racket. Would be a shame if you went to hell. Just believe this thing and maybe that won’t happen. Mafiaesque. Gods bad cop, Jesus is good cop.
@@hydrarl3869 Respectfully, it's not pointless. It allows us to look more into science than the religious, since we don't know what caused everything, we're constantly searching deeper and deeper into what did, creating very important discoveries in several subjects. Atheism may not give any "benefits" as it would be said, but it does allow you the most open starting point
I have to admit to being very puzzled with regards to your comment. Pascal's wager is fundamentally built on the hell and heaven claims of Christianity, the only way it comments on how lack of believe is 'poiuntless' is with regards to helping with getting a pay-off from those claims.
@@christiangreff5764 positive vs negative afterlife is a common religious theme, and the most popular 3 all have it, and yes, the payoff is the entire point of the argument. There is no utility in being atheist, so if you are being optimal, you would still choose to be religious, even if you have no faith yet, not a great mindset, but at least it gets people going the right way
@@hydrarl3869 But only within the very narrow frame of these assumed pay-offs, and those are basically worthless,; a point often made by using 'Pascal's mugging'? It's a thought experiment set-up to show how one would normally never follow this type of behavior. It goes like this: Imagine you walk down an ally when some guy jumps in front of you. He claims to be almighty and if you do not give him 10 Dollar, you will suffer in hell for eternity. Would you believe him and give him 10 Dollar? I mean, it's only 10 Dollar and he threatens an infinite negative pay-off, after all. If you do give him the money, how much more could he have asked for and you would still have done so? If you did not, how much lower would his demand have to be for you to do so? In plain words: Anyone can promise any number of arbitrary rewards and punishments for any arbitrary behavior. Optimal choices therefore have to weigh the promised rewards nad punishments with their likelyhood. Without further evidence, a basically zero chance negates the wild promises, with further evidence why would you need Pascal's wager?
This video is really kind of funny to me, because what you describe is almost exactly how I ended up leaving christianity as a child. I remember questioning my faith, and looking at many of the bigger christian apologists at the time, I found much of what they said to be unsatisfactory, so I took a KJB from the free bible rack at my church, and I read the whole thing. I came to the conclusion that the bible must not represent the truth, and if there is a God, and it is a god who wants me to know they exist, I will someday find the truth. Sadly I cannot say I have ever seen evidence for the supernatural and I don't really care anymore.
You will never know the feeling of an ex-muslim like me , i litteraly have no fear of jesus being the true god due to indoctrination . I simply never feel the fear of disbelieving in any god of any religion because i grew up indoctrinated that allah is the absolute truth and the one and only god , if there was a god he should’ve had a better way for us to know the truth . People like me are doomed in all religions.
Ah yes, "special pleading"-the go-to buzzword when you can’t actually refute what makes Christianity's *claims* at least unique and worth looking into, but still want to sound clever.
@ Lol, no. The argument in this vid is basically all those other religions are fake, but not ours because it’s special. Our claims are cooler, not like the fake ones. Source: trust me, bro. Because if you don’t trust me and accept our wild claims, well then your claims wouldn’t make sense. Yeah, I’ll pass on that. No buzzwords needed.
More or less i ended up taking this wager the way you described it last year. If a thing is true no criticism can stand against it. If a thing is untrue then it will be revealed as untrue with enough searching. to the one who knocks it will be opened. Open your heart to Jesus Christ!
You might be missing a 'critical' between 'enough' and 'searching', which is the detail that makes all of that so difficult. There's a game designed to show that: One player has a specific rule for picking numbers and gives you the first two numbers following that rule (say 3 and 7). The other player can suggest new numbers (or chains of numbers) and get told whether they comply with the rule. Final goal is to guess the rule. It's super annoying but very effective at showing why critial questioning is so difficult.
@@nikitaafanas Nothing to do with dumbness, all to do with me expressing myself unclearly (and rambeling). I'll try to do better in a second attempt: It is easy to question believes. It is difficult to CRITICALLY question believes. The difference lies (in my opinion) mostly in how well one can step outside of the "model of the world" one is currently operating under. An example would be the following: Suppose one believes in 'natural rights' (such as in the charta of human rights: all humans hold these inalienable rights). Questioning this might entail a thought experiment on how to convince someone of those rights. Now one can easily be tempted into answering "Well, that's easy, 'natural rights' are basically self-evident" since one is already convinced of that fact. Critical questioning would mean overcomming how these 'natural rights' seem self-evident to oneself (as someone who already believes them) and seriously considering how convincing one's arguments for them are to a person that does not already ascribe to them. I hope I managed to make my point a bit more clear.
I actually did take the Butler's Wager a month or so ago, and I ended up with this as the conclusion of my research so far: Based on all the evidence I have seen so far, it does indeed seem safe to assume that Jesus performed most miracles attributed to him. However, I have my doubts regarding his omnipotence and omniscience. A major reason for this is the resurrection story itself, as after his resurrection, Jesus only appears to his closest followers, and not publicly in the middle of Jerusalem, which would have absolutely destroyed any counter claim to Christian doctrine. Similarly, no extra biblical sources corroborate the darkness which fell upon the world when Christ was crucified, which would have been pretty important proof of Christianity. However, the reason I am currently convinced that Jesus was not omniscient, is because Jesus consistently treats the events of the Old Testament, specifically the events of Genesis-1 Kings, as historical fact. However, there are serious problems with that being the case, the biggest being the timeline. We know from archeological evidence that the king Shishak mentioned in 1 Kings is almost certainly Shoshenq 1 of Egypt, who ruled between the years 943-922 BC, and who invaded modern day Israel in 925 BC. This lines up well with Biblical timeline. However, when Shoshenq is boasting of the treasures he won and the cities he looted, Jerusalem is absent from the list. That could be explained away still, but that leads to the bigger problem in timeline. If we follow the dates given in the Bible for the reigns of all kings up to this point, we get a date of 1047 BC for the coronation of Saul. However, we run into a problem here, known as Egypt. Because Egypt controlled the Levant from 1500 BC to sometime between 1155 - 1100 BC. So, the entirety of Joshua and Judges would need to have occurred in 100 years at max, which is contradictory to the timeline laid out in the bible itself. Thus, it seems, with all the evidence we have now, that the authors of the Old Testament were compiling the text together centuries after the fact based mainly on such oral tradition as was available to them. Now if Jesus is omniscient and omnipotent, he would not have affirmed the scripture which came before him as true; however, if he simply had the power to perform miracles, and he was raised in Second Temple Judaism and considered the scripture given to him as truth, then his actions make perfect sense. Of course, I may be wrong, and I may yet receive a sign which makes me believe in Christ and his message. But for now, this is my current stance on Christian scripture: Genesis-Joshua: Mythical, written well after the fact, exaggerated to the point of unreliability Joshua-Kings: Mytho-History. All the kings are well supported by extrabiblical evidence post omri. Chronicles: A rewriting of the above in the Second Temple The Rest of Old Testament: Legends and moral teachings, mostly based off of the above. The Gospels: Probably written by the apostles or someone who knew them 1st hand, but almost certainly written Decades after Jesus's crucifixion. Acts: Probably autobiographical account of Paul The Epistles: The opinions of very early Christians on doctrine. Some interesting stuff, but nothing which actually changes my beliefs. Revelation: Reading this book reminded me a lot of early Old Testament, a very different vibe to all the others. I do not think this is a genuine revelation
One cannot take the wager in simply a month's time, and your comment here is far from a steelman argument against Christianity. I can recommend some reading materials if you want.
@@TestifyApologetics Perhaps not, but it is an explaination as to why my path doesnt align with Christianity for now. I also had a near death experience a year ago due to complications in surgery. During that experience, I did feel the presence of God, but I saw several persons within, including many of the Hindu deities my family worshipped therein. While I am young and do remain open to change (which is indeed why I read religious literature and apologetics), my current stance on on religion seems to preclude the option that there is only one path to salvation
Indeed, that is what a subhuman like yourself would say. It must make you glad to know Hindus are only born 😂 meanwhile the population has survived all manner of hardship for thousands of years longer than most other religions
The atheist coping and seething in the comments is the best evidence that Butler was 💯 % correct. 😂
As was briefly touched on in the video, even if Christianity turns out to be wrong (I wholly believe it won't be) what have we got to lose? And if it turns out to be right, those who don't believe will be in agony in the lake of fire known as hell.
@@samuelmattingly1395 "what have we got to lose? "
A life without doctrine and the realisation you'll have to live it to the fullest as this is all there is.
Its enough for me.
@@Wmeester1971
Oh no, I lived a disciplined life dedicated to charity and to serving my community, for no reason? The Horror!
@@dodongo7706
Well for the Christian ones, Mathew 7:21-23 clearly states that these hypocrites will be shunned and will not enter heaven.
As for zealots of other religions, we may assume that they won’t enter heaven, however as an Orthodox Christian, it’s not my position to declare who receives salvation, that’s Gods call. God had shown mercy to other zealots such as Paul, who was persecuting Christians under Roman and Jewish law.
@@wild_burn Tell that to people that lose all family ties because they do not believe in the god you are believing in. Tell that to all the people who are the victims of religious violence.
No matter your perspective, I'd refuse to let my life constraint by the lies being force upon you.
As an atheist, about to take you up on the challenge. I just bought the most beautiful copy of the gospel today, and I'll start reading the old testament as well during the Christmas holidays, it only seems right. I've been studying the religion for a while, i was born into catholicism after all, but you can't really say you know Christianity until you've read the book.
Good man!
@@aqua2949 Wish you the best bro!
Happy Reading. Even if you don't take faith, I am sure you will learn lots of history and tap into a beautiful shared cultural wisdom spanning thousands of years and several continents. You may want to keep chatgpt or claude nearby and bounce your thoughts and the material off it. Make it a more interactive study.
Exactly correct. Welcome to the faith!
🥳🎉👏🏾
1:45 very bold of you to assume that I believe Australia exists in the first place, Erik 😤
Yes, and kangaroos can't be real no such thing as a giant mouse that hops. Take care
OBJECTION
Theres gigant spiders in Brazil amazônia,therefore Austrália is real
I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that there's some mammal out there that LAYS EGGS? You're really telling me to believe that? Poppycock...
@@muppetonmeds and the female giant mice have huge stomach pockets where the store babies???
who's gonna believe that??
Australia _might_ exist, but New Zealand is 100% a psyop.
For some clarification, Pascal's wager was book ended by his belief that, if you decided to take his bet and immersed yourself in a group of Christians that you would learn about the faith and eventually your false belief based on hedging your bets would come to a true and devout belief.
However, his assumption that all would gravitate toward Christianity as their start would have been true back in his day, but that doesn't hold in the modern world and is most certainly a flaw.
And, more importantly, it was presented as part of a larger work that put forward several other arguments. It was never intended to be used as a standalone argument, more as a way to nudge somebody who still wasn't sure over the line.
It’s hardly even an argument to begin with, it’s a cost benefit ratio/analysis between two propositions one being Christianity and atheism. All it is saying is that based on cost benefit analysis alone between the two that someone sitting on the fence would be more rational to side with Christian belief as infinite reward of one position versus an infinite loss of the other if Christianity turned out to be true. A lot of people on both sides misunderstand it as some kind of proof for God or that there’s a wager that makes atheism inherently dumb when that’s not the point. It’s more of a thought exercise and a nudge in a certain direction than a classical argument/apologetic afaict
@@LilBitDistributist Thank you: I've classified it as a thought experiment, and I'm surprised at how often people think that it's an argument for God's existence!
It's definitely a flaw. However, it can be helpful to get people to convert who are agnostic, or are already leaning towards Christianity anyways. Not everyone who professes to be Christian is, sadly.
Church is now just a 501-C3 worshipping social club far from Christian.
tl;dr I don't like how you dismiss other religions but then boast Christianity so in the first paragraph I dismiss Christianity. In the second paragraph I argue that within a finite lifespan there are too many denominations of Christianity, which are too similar to each other to distinguish quickly, and so the wager turns into a gamble once again. In the final paragraph I use the fact that we have no good knowledge of what happens after death to create an equally plausible scenario where you do not want to believe in Christianity (hence I posit that things like the odds of them existing etc are nonsenical and purely vibes).
I find it equally easy to disregard Christianity in the same ways that you disregard Budism, Islam, etc. Take for example the first page of Genisis, which is incompatible with modern knowledge on the formation of the universe, or how different kinds are said to be created which is incompatible with evolution, ofcourse Christian theologians have, over time, adapted their interpretations, these are all just metaphors, or these were written for people of an earlier time, etc (btw Noah's flood is another big one). Anyways this isn't my main point, as an Athiest I just found it funny how you disregard Budism because some of their tales were written about after Buddas death, just like all of the Christian Gospels (as far as I am aware, all of the Gospels that I am familiar with are, this also depends on your denomination of Christianity) which is unfortunate because I liked Butler's Wager and felt that it was inappropriately portrayed as dismissive of other religions.
Anyways, the first issue with Butlers Wager is exactly the same as Pascals, for starters: which version of Christianity? There are so many lookalikes and denominations, and differences in teaching, do you really think you would be able to, within your finite lifespan, tell them apart with any real degree of certainty? I do not, for me I would say that this wager is still a blind guess, and I would rather think that an all-good, all-knowing god did not let a roulette decide my fate.
And here is a sillier thought experiment: For whichever god you belive in, due to Pascals wager or Butler's Wager, imagine a counter-god, one who acts exactly like your god, except that at the end of your life, they will do the opposite of what they've promised you, so you go to hell instead of heaven and vice versa. For such a god any evidence towards your god is equally evidence towards the counter-god, unless you believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful god cannot trick you into believing they are all-good :), then once again you are left with a roll of the dice. With regards to this argument, I believe that it counters all arguments that claim to know, or even claim to think they might have evidence for, a being like a god exists. The key to this argument is the fact that we do not have empirical ways of 'checking in' on those that have died, and hence there is not way to verifying, or measuring, or approximating, or estimating, what happened to them after they died, this is also why this argument does not work in the case of e.g. my fridge, because you can come and see that I do indeed, have a fridge. Finally notice that a wager would be redundant if you had real, verifiable, strong evidence of Christians going to heaven after they die, since in that case you wouldn't argue in this roundabout way, talking about doing your own research, you would just cite a neat, concise document with the evidence, and the evidence wouldn't be disputed, it would be replicable (I could check if I wanted to) and everybody would already believe in the correct religion. But that's not where we are and hence I am going to sleep now. Good night.
This is my life experience! I was raised on an atheist family and as a teenager I began wondering about life's meaning and I soon realized that if religions were right I had to expore them for my own safety. I explored them all in theory and some in practice, as well as many Christian denominations, and now I've been a Roman Catholic for seven years, utterly happy in a life of Grace and the hope of everlasting life.
I had the same experience and became a Baptist.
Same here. Came to Christianity from a different Abrahamic religion
Until you need some family member left here to pay for your mass instead of Jesus
@@quentandil Pretty backwards reasoning 😂
I've been a catholic for since birth and grew up in a catholic country. I even studied in a catholic school. Then when I started reading the bible, I realised the error that I am practicing as a catholic. I gave my life to Christ and move away from the religion I grew up with.
this had pretty much been my journey. I'm a lifelong atheist but through Alex O'Connor I started looking into Christianity more thoroughly.
At first it was more a historic interest. How did this guy 2000 years ago have such a large effect on the modern world we live in today?
Now, I'm still an atheist (probably agnostic now) but I've started taking the historic and theological arguments for Christianity more seriously. I've even started praying and gone to church a few times because there is that doubt in my head now of "what if it IS all true?"
It seems you're on the path to self-delusion. If your goal is comfort over the pursuit of truth, then, by all means, indulge in that illusion. But I'd be curious-what aspect of Christian doctrine has convinced you to entertain the thought, 'What if it's all true'?
Well I hope God blesses you on your journey and remember that it's mainly a personal relationship with him more than anything
If it’s all true then Christianity is probably still wrong tho. Keep seeking.
May the Lord bless your journey. Place your trust in Jesus Christ
@@Matt-on4of Right, so you're teetering on the edge of buying into a Bronze Age superstition based on some historical curiosity and an existential game of "what-ifs". Well, let's unpack that:
The Bible is an incoherent patchwork of plagiarized myths, mistranslations, and political propaganda-not some divine handbook. You seriously are going to appeal to the narcissistic deity who supposedly devised the whole universe but couldn't devise anything more intelligent in redemption terms than a cosmic blood sacrifice? That would be like burning down a house because there's a spider inside.
It was Roman imperialism, forced conversions, and a millenary history of scare tactics masquerading as love and salvation, not some divine proof that explains the proliferation of Christianity. And what "doubt" are you having? It's the very same manipulative trick religions have used for thousands of years to make you feel broken, then sell you the cure.
If you're looking for truth, perhaps start with evidence and reason, not groveling to an ancient marketing scheme designed to control your fear of death. Don't mistake centuries of cultural inertia for validity-it's not profound, it's just persistent nonsense
I think Pascal created his wager in order for it to function in the way that Butler expressed it. More like "it is worth betting on investigating the supernatural " than "bet blindly". Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone.
Yes, he did mean it that way. It's actually upsetting how people misinterpret his words. He thought if Christianity was true, Jesus would show himself to anyone who truly knocked on his door as Bible promises.
@hebthbf Exactly
Merry Christmas
Yup, the taking up of Pascal's wager is in no way exclusive of Butler's "improvement".
@@hebthbf He probably should have worded it that way instead of the other way then. Lol You whacky protestants, always trying to read between the lines and "interperet" clear and concise writings.
From what I've heard, Pascal's wager is best used under highly specific circumstances: when you have already been investigating, and you're just on the fence as to whether you should invest your life in Christianity or back out into agnosticism or atheism, use the wager as a tie breaker. But even then you still run into the "you can't force yourself to believe" problem.
Rightt. If I somehow became convinced that Christianity was more likely to be true than not, I'd definitely take that leap of faith.
@@dogsandyoga1743 People don't get convinced to become Christian they get forced to become Christian by some sort of stress in their life commonly called a "come to Jesus moment" such as a near death situation or birth of a child. It is stress-related. This is why using logic and arguments about religion in general are pointless.
It seems like many people chose to believe because it looks like the better business decision.
It's not about belief but a willingness to trust.
My thoughts have always been, if you can narrow the scopes down to just Christianity or atheism/agnosticism, it is simply more logical to be a Christian. But, again, you're right, that doesn't solve unbelief.
I would argue that Pascal's wager is not an apologetic argument in any normal sense. It is a way of choosing the best course in life given limited data. This is not the same as demonstrating evidence for God etc. Thanks!
I kinda agree. I think Pascal's wager actually has some strong value in the points it tries to makes, but you can only take it so far and if that is your apologetic you use to try and preach the gospel with, you have some problems lol. But, I think if you take it for what it is, it actually still does make some good educational and philosophical points, but no you shouldn't make it the basis of your conversion or apologetic.
@ALavaPenguin Agreed, my friend. Thank you!
I sense you guys have created a cosy little echo chamber here😅
@@thethruthchannel meh, perhaps...
@@brucermarino it's a way of analyzing the situation and choosing the most logical option, the theoretical winning side.
I'm a Christian but don't think heaven is a reward. Rather a resting place awaiting the ressurection
??? there is still going to be heaven after the resurrection
@@IndoHelleneBall that's the new heaven not the current one
Yeah, no. Heaven will become the earth after the great resurrection but that waiting place that we’ll be in is spiritual prison/paradise. Look into LDS theology if you’re interested.
@@IndoHelleneBall At the resurrection there will be a new heaven and new earth. However I also like to think of Heaven more as a state than a physical location. It is the state of perfect and complete relationship with God.
@@emberplays6376 or you could read the Bible and come to that conclusion without false theology
Alex O’Connor has also shown that it’s possible for an atheist TH-cam channel to start giving a fair hearing to the case for Christianity, without hurting the subscriber count.
Alex is probably the closest I’ve seen to someone seriously taking the Wager-but when it comes to his arguments against Christianity, especially the New Testament, they’re mostly recycled Bart Ehrman takes. Honestly, it feels like a greatest hits album of skepticism. On top of that, I think he overhypes the problem of evil, as if it’s the ultimate trump card. Sure, it’s a tough question, but it’s not the mic drop he seems to think it is.
@@TestifyApologetics Malachi 2:17 indicates that these are not new arguments anyway.
@@TestifyApologetics Funny thing is Bart Erhman lost so many debates with Christians and yet he is still recycling his refuted arguaments over and over again to decieve many also I wonder if any of these two were Christians in the first place if they left for their arguaments like Imagine seeing a critical arguament and not even trying to debunk it and just give in.
@@TestifyApologetics alex is mad disingenuous like bart. he knows christianity is deep and has answers but will continue to present popular reddit level objections just to "win" a debate. people respect him on all sides because he is a very efficient chameleon.
@@TestifyApologeticsThe emotional part of the Problem of Evil is a legitimate concern that skeptics raise about theism.
The absurd biased nature of this “Challenge” automatically throws any kind of credence to this idea out for me. Scholars agree that Jesus did exist, but to say he was well documented ( outside of the Bible ) is an extremely Bold claim. Not accounting for contradictions and the like within the Bible itself.
The way I read this whole thing is “Start with Christianity first so you are more likely to believe our religion before you research any others”. It also discounts the many atheist scholars who know more about Christianity your average Christian.
Nice try though
Great recap
Chad.
Yeah, exactly, its a very self centric challenge that removes objectivity by forcing you to view things through a christian lens
oh, the ole’ “contradictions in the bible” argument. Has never been really proven and it is the single most scrutinized piece of literature in history.
Also, trying to discredit Jesus because there is not a lot of evidence outside the Bible is a major flaw. You forget to consider that the New Testament is a compiled book of different narrations and letters throughout a period of less than a 100 years by different authors. It is not a book that was designed in a day by a single author. By your resistance on the challenge you are just proving the point that you lack a lot of education in Christianity thus you are not a real critic. Nice try though.
Yeah, I'm not so sure why he'd want us to start with Christianity first if his ultimate goal was for us to find truth.
However, this challenge does make sense, if you start with just any religion outside of just "start with Christianity because it's wild 🤪"
I was born into a Christian family, attended church, studied the Bible, and sincerely believed in God. My deconversion journey was painful since I didn't want to stop believing. I simply couldn't maintain my belief in the face of so many contradictions and evidential problems. So I would say I have answered Butler's wager.
@johngriffiths2637 I mean this with all the respect in the world, I promise. If you think there are contradictions in the Bible then you did not study it. I honestly thought the same thing. I decided maybe I should see why people said there were not. I was very wrong. There are none. There are a lot of misunderstood things, or things taken out of context. "Evidence that demands a verdict" was a great book. I don't remember if it's Josh McDowell or his son who wrote it. Mike Winger has an entire series on youtube where he tackles supposed contradictions.
Remember a lot of people will disappoint us. Especially people who claim to be Christian. That doesn't mean it's God who is wrong. That's the whole point of the gospel. We suck. We sin and make mistakes. Jesus loves us so much He died to pay for those sins. We are never perfect. He is and when we trust in Him we are made perfect. Even though sometimes we still suck 😉
I pray you are blessed and Jesus speaks to you.
The strongest case for Christianity is that that the bible is the literal word of god and details the miracles that prove the existence of god. Unfortunately, we know the bible had mortal authors, and that the new testament was written down decades after Jesus' death (often not even by those the gospels were named after). This disproves the religions strongest case, and reminds me why christian apologetics comes across more as trolling than anything else...
Had me in the first half, ngl. 😂
You lost me starting at about 2:30. There is no contemporary evidence that people immediately proclaimed Christ rose from the dead, especially with the empty tomb and stone narrative that you depicted. Nor is there contemporary evidence to suggest that Christ’s followers were under threat of persecution immediately after the crucifixion.
@@jimurban5367 I was a little confused by your statement at first, but I figured I’d ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. What are you looking for as far as evidence of the resurrection and following persecution? You mention contemporary evidence but how soon after are you trying to get these documents, what would be a reasonable timeline for you to have confidence in the accuracy?
@ It would be best if we had immediate writings, by multiple independent authors. Unfortunately, we don’t. Instead, we have the writings from Paul, within two to three decades of Jesus’ death, which provide very few details of Jesus’ resurrection; followed by the anonymous Gospels and Acts within, what, four to nine decades after Jesus’s death, with Matthew and Luke largely copying from Mark, and the details across the these five books becoming increasingly embellished as the writing is further removed from Jesus’ death.
@@jimurban5367this is really just regurgitated talking points made by atheists online, no luke and matthew dont copy from mark and while mark being the earliest account is the consencus, Marks christology is one of the highest among the gospel probably only behind john. Have u ever tried reading through mark? Because i have a feeling u havent, even as someone with no biblical context who cant see that mark 1:2 1:3 and so on are echoes of old testament divine passaged as early as mark 2 Jesus is seen forgiving sins something only God does. So i just have to say what are you looking for, if before you even starting to look for evidence you already dissmiss the evidence without even looking i have huge doubts you can be convinced by any amount of evidence.
@@mr.mustachefreak9644 Mark's christology is not high when compared to John's.
@@jimurban5367 no, they don't copy eachother
hi sceptic here. you asked at 4:14 to explain why i still reject Christianity after a rigorous examination and my answer is insufficient rational evidence. i have searched and searched and for the life of me i am unable to find a single argument that holds up after i think about it critically for more than 30 seconds. feel free to prove me wrong :)❤ no hard feelings
great, articulate an argument for me and tell me why it doesn't work.
@TestifyApologetics insufficient evidence
that's not an articulation of anything, that's just a claim without basis.
@TestifyApologetics it really isn't. I was very kind to you in not pointing your reversal of the burden of proof fallacy and decided to provide my own argument as to why I don't believe in your god which is I do not see sufficient logical evidence that would warrant such a belief. In reality I don't have to prove he doesn't exist because as an theist the burden of proof is solely on your shoulders as you are the one making the claim. Trying to use big fancy words will not save you from having to back yourself up with logically sound evidence.
My articulation is quite simple, no theist has succeeded in meeting the burden proof and therefore I'm an atheist
No, you made the claim that you investigated Christianity and found no evidence. Steelman the Christian argument and tell me why it doesn't work. It's not reversing the burden of proof. You claimed that you studied it, now buck up and demonstrate it or be quiet.
As far as I can tell, following the evidence leads to agnosticism.
There simply is not sufficient objectively convincing evidence to rationally accept any of the supernatural claims of the Bible. And this is not just an off the cuff throwaway line; it is the considered opinion of someone who has read and seen more than his fair share of scripture, theology, and apologetics. I think I have given Christianity a fair shake, and thus far it has failed to provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence to rationally accept its teachings.
Great. Steelman an argument for Christianity and tell me why it doesn't work.
Given the alternative which is death, how much evidence is necessary?
Would you want God to exist?
We have beliefs because of uncertainty.
@@TestifyApologetics You said: _"Great. Steelman an argument for Christianity and tell me why it doesn't work."_
Sure. If we take your version of "Butler's wager", we are still left with insufficient objectively convincing evidence for the resurrection, and the Christian God still demands faith and love, which are involuntary, irrational emotional responses.
@@cedward5718 You said: _"Given the alternative which is death, how much evidence is necessary?"_
Exactly as much as when the alternative would be eternal bliss. You don't lower your standards of evidence for your preferred outcome. Would you take a medicine that was tested by its manufacturer if what you suggest were true?
You said: _"Would you want God to exist?"_
I would probably prefer the Christian God over some, perhaps even many, other deities, provided it offered a solution for the eternal torment for dissenters thingy. I do have a weak spot for the Greco-Roman pantheon, though, so on a good day I may want Zeus and his buddies to exist.
What about you? Would you want a God to exist that would send your child to suffer in hell for all eternity just because she was unable to believe this deity existed?
You said: _"We have beliefs because of uncertainty."_
I agree. And when a deity demands belief but refuses to provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence to rationally accept its existence, then that deity cannot be regarded as "good" or "just" or "loving" anymore. If you believe in such a deity, that's fine, as long as you are aware that it must be either indifferent or evil.
@@hansdemos6510hmm that’s peculiar. What makes you believe that agape is an emotion?
Okay. Let me tackle this from my perspective.
Firstly, what is Hell? To be without god, correct? So therefore, why is it always depicted as this whole burining in eternity thing? Doesn't exactly speak well to god's morals if that's his idea of a fair punishment.
Secondly; If you are moral enough, you will go to heaven regardless, yes? If I was an entirely moral person ( by YOUR standards, just to make things easier ) and bever once believed in Christianity, should I go to heaven or hell? If hell, your god isn't fair.
Lastly ( and this is personal ): Believing in him would do nothing for me. Why would worshiping an intangible force that has never shown itself to me even accomplish? I already live morally. You know what that would accomplish instead? Stress. Stress that I'm not accidentally doing something wrong. Stress that I'm going to hell. Stress that I commited sin. Stress that the being I oray to will cast me into hell anyways simply for thoughts. It is a toxic mindset to have and I'd rather do without it, obviously.
Sister Faustina has a nice summary of what you're touching on: God's nature demands judgement but His persons desire mercy. Keep that in mind forever, it is a strong heuristic.
Now for each of your concerns:
Hell is a willing and knowing disconnect from God, you're right. The reason it is depicted as fire I believe is a mix of the Roman in Roman Catholic, and a way the divine relates their physics to our lower ones.
What does it mean to be moral enough ? It's by God's physics and being this is compared against. This is a basically impossible task for humans that know ourselves and our desires first. It's why Christianity is unique in saying there is no work good enough to reconcile us with God, so God Himself came down to create this bridge. Christianity is unique in saying that the path to salvation isn't knowledge, or work, or faith. It is a relationship.
Desolation is a common feeling in Christian communities. St. Therese of Liseux is among many in saying, what am I to God ? What are our works to God ? But, you WILL worship something. You will be animated by something else, driving your actions and desires. You will be controlled by something else. Either choose to worship yourself and your flesh if you want, or accept the grace given to be who and what you were made to be. If instead you want to nail your flesh to a cross, build virtue, and be more than a monkey driven by pleasure and pain, someone has already done it. God and His church He founded in Catholicism is out there.
You are called to make your physics compatible with God's perfection. If you do not want to, He will respect your decision. For it would be wrong to force you to be with Him otherwise right ?
@standard-user-name okay. That still doesn't satisfy my questions.
Going onto Hell: It is depicted as a miserable place filled with brimstone and such. It is where the wicked go to rot. So, I ask. Why? Sure, they get their due punishment but lasting that long, no matter how cruel an individual, is a horrific violation of humanity. That is immoral.
To continue this point: Being moral is entirely possible without being religious. What I am saying is that a person can be moral, even when using your own religion's code. So, in this case: Should this individual go to heaven or hell? If Hell is merely brought about by the absence of God, then this individual will go to Hell, yes? In that case, there is a flaw with the system.
If you try to argue there are no moral atheists, you are very clearly misinformed or biased. Morals as a whole are based on human values in the first place. And, if you are to say that God gave humans inherent morals: God is not needed, as we already have morals.
@theoriginalchuckler9594 No, you cannot be moral. Morality requires an objective standard to judge against. You can only evaluate behavior using your personal preferences or the social preferences of the society in which you live. If you want objective morals that constrain a creator, then you are a hellenist. Read Plato and stop pretending to be an atheist.
Finally, the Christian God exists outside time and space. Why assume eternity will be string of linear conscious moments?
Why would you stress out about being immoral if you truly believe that you’re living a moral life? Why would believing in God suddenly make you doubt that?
@@bluecannibaleyes Because the implication of God neccesitates that I follow his morals if I am to get into heaven, which I do not always agree with.
You would not feel stressed working on your own, but if you have the eyes of your boss looming over you and scrutinizing you for even the tiniest mistake, or rather just a difference in how you work, or an opinion or what have you: would you not be more stressed?
To be fair, from what I heard, Pascal's Wager was the final part of his arguments for Christianity. He started with evidential approach and then tossed that on the end, but ppl took that last part and "debunked" it and ignored all the build up.
Don't you find it weird that people who believe in particular religion end up with conclusion that their religion is the right one? If Pascal was Muslim and said you should believe in Allah would that convince you to become Muslim? You lose nothing in believing in Allah if he's not real but if you don't believe in him and he's real then there's a problem.
"My religion is obviously the right one" said every theist
@@realdragonrealdragon not every theist thinks this just Christians and most Muslims and Jews.
@realdragon People being the same religion they were raised doesn't discredit Christianity's legitimacy. On the contrary, the many people who started athiest or something else and essentially followed Butler's wager and committed to deep inquiry of the facts and arguments only to find Christianity true, like none other than C.S. Lewis, gives immense credit to Christianity.
@@realdragonI started atheist and became Christian. Your point being?
@@Parallax3599 What about Christians that converted to other religions? Or atheists who converted to non Christian religions? Ir theists who became atheists?
Again you can make same argument about literally any other religion
As an atheist, I'm not offended by this video in any way, I just think it's pointless honestly. It essentially feels like listening to a flat-earther insist that you give his views a fair shot by reading through all the evidence for flat-earth theory before criticizing his beliefs. I understand that a lot of people might feel like this is an incredibly unfair or even insulting comparison to make, but you have to understand that we are talking about a religion which preaches that a man 2000 years ago was born to a virgin and that he healed people with divine powers, walked on water, and rose the dead. It would be one thing if people took a symbolic view of these stories, but you need to believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus were events that literally happened in order to be considered a true Christian, and I don't think any amount of Bible study is going to make me less sceptical. Frankly, I think Christians would be just as sceptical of these stories if they heard them in any other context outside of scripture.
If you can believe the universe came from nothing, you can believe a virgin gave birth to Jesus Christ.
The problem is that, unlike with flat vs geoid earth models, christianity and atheism are roughly equally ontologically implausible
@@jimmcneal5292 I doubt that you know what the word "ontologically" actually means.
Exactly. The subhuman that created this video as well as those leaving comments agreeing with the premise without second thought also place Christianity above all other faiths. What it claims is exactly the same as what the Muslims claim. Why should one "start with Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter? This is just Pascal's Wager but just dressed up in such a way that it appears rational and respectable.
@@godofmath1039 why comment on a video you did not watch? He explains exactly why to begin with Christianity.
Despite Jesus Christ being mentioned in Roman records and a handful of other non-Christian historic letters, there are no independent records of his resurrection. People getting tortured and killed for their beliefs is sadly nothing out of the ordinary, so his followers being prosecuted for their beliefs is not an argument.
Oof, lack of “independent records” of the resurrection is irrelevant. The earliest accounts are embedded in the New Testament itself, which is a collection of historical documents written by people directly connected to the events. Expecting Romans or Jews to happily record the resurrection undermines how history worked-hostile sources don’t typically document what validates their opponents’ claims.
The fact that Christianity exploded in the face of immediate persecution, centered on this audacious claim, makes it historically unique. Dismissing it without engaging the evidence is just lazy skepticism. Try again.
@@bubba6581If that’s true, give an example of that
@ Yes and the fact that it was rejected despite the fact that a lot of people would favour if they accepted that.
@ Yes but those are more of the arguments on Christian traditions or how some things are interpreted in Bible(99% of them is agreed by both), but 99% of understanding of Bible between Catholics and Orthodox are same, the only things that are considered very different between them is the pope and the calendar(which isn’t even talked that much). If putting something heretical in the Bible would be so easy we would not have Councils of Nicea, inquisitions and multiple denominations(most of them are pretty bad)
@ I also saw how much Catholics hate Protestants, but Ok, I am going to sleep, Good night, good talk.
Thanks for the choice between nonsense,nonsense and nonsense.
I choose to believe in elvis,many eyewitnesses for his ressurection,many books written about him,being seen after he died...
Close second is big foot,there is even video footage of it!
🤪
Pascals Wager already overcomes the listed objections.
Firstly, it does not, in the abstract, select specifically for the Christian religion: only for theism. Alternatively: it sets itself in the specific case of Christianity vs. Atheism.
In other words: it's either A) some god X (TBD) vs. no god at all { where the variable "god" belongs to the set of posited divine entities }, or B) the triune God of Christendom _specifically_ vs. no god at all. It's a controlled dichotomy where you are selecting the variable "god" either before the Wager or after it, not in the middle of it.
Secondly, the ante is negligible. The calculus is simple and easy: it is only willfully subverted by irrational motivated reasoning.
Thirdly, there is no forced belief. That's another misunderstanding that results from subconsciously willful distortion of the terms.
To clarify: Pascale's Wager implicitly understands that it's a gamble - _it's in the name and framing._ The Wager as posited didn't say "believe" / "don't believe": it said "live as if God is real" / "live as if God is not real."
I'll reiterate: Pascal's Wager is about _living,_ not believing. Now, if you live as if God is real: (unforced) belief is a fairly natural consequence.
However - as Butler provides a similar entry to Christendom for those earnest seekers who are genuinely confounded by Pascal - let all who may find The Way.
It does deal with Christianity because theism per se doesn’t come with the same baggage that is used in this argument
There are lots of problems here.
Lets start with the obvious ones.
2:28 it does make bold historical claims and the only evidence for those claims are in the holy scripture of that religion....
3:32 is Christianity is false you lose a bit of time.... Only for seconds later call people with degree's in theology and biblical scholars uninformed.
How much time am i to spend on it? am i expected to get a theology degree? or just watch youtube apologists... This is so unclear its not practical.
Also its reverse is true for Christians. If atheism is false, you wasted a little time. If atheism is true, you have found truth....
4:24 this challenge is impossible. Because the every argument has defeaters and defeaters for those defeaters at this point.
Every reason i could give why do not think Christianity is true is something you have an answer for. Most likely an answer i do not accept or think is a good answer.
At which point you will probably accuse me of not having studied it enough or not being able to complete the challenge to your satisfaction because i did not use the defeaters i do not think are credible but you do.
2:02 i will remember this is a credible objective next time a christian accused me of being an atheist just because i want to sin...
If atheists are false it is alternately damnation. Atheism is not a belief system, is no belief
1) I have to admit I fail to see how these two wagers are related. Pascal's wager is an argument specifically not from evidence but instead payoff matrices while Butler's wager is not an argument at all but rather a call to come to a believe based on evidence, with the conviction that an honest investigation of evidence will lead to Christianity (where I do find the latter to be much more usefull)
2) This brings us to my second point: What would be considered a 'fair' investigation of Christianitie's claims? If you have both Christian's and atheists coming to opposite conclusions while both insisting that they did a 'fair' investigation, we can only conclude that there is a mismatch concerning what is considered a 'fair' investigation.
This kind of stuff always bugs me because I'm a Christian and I was an Atheist for a good 15 years, and I actually looked into Christianity's lack of evidence in terms of Ahteism, and there really is no evidence that can't be easily hand waved away, and I'm tired of Christian's pretending otherwise when it's in the Bible itself that you can't just get into heaven by being "wise." All the "look at the trees" and "it's in the Bible" evidence is baseless unless you decide otherwise. it's "faith" because of that. We doubt because of that.
I love Jesus Christ, and he is my Lord and Savior. I love everyone and want nothing but happiness and success for them, and I want people to be saved and come to know Him, but pointing to our usual stuff and going "see, God exists" isn't going to convince people any more than me pointing to a house fly is going to convince you that you owe me 50 bucks.
I decided to believe because I wanted peace. To not need to worry about if I'll be able to pay bills, or eat. To not need to worry about if I'll find anyone to love, or being successful. To be able to go from being so ridden with depression and anxity that I'm rocking on my bed to calm and relaxed just because I've got closer to Jesus (Worked to form new calming nureo pathways) for me is worth picking Jesus, and (if I went to church) 10% of my income like weed is worth (at least) 10% of a stoner's income and all their "whoa, weeeeed bro" stuff.
Lastly, Jesus is actually pretty cool and chill. Read Matthew.
God bless all y'all
Had you considered objectivism?
@chrisxdeboy that's basically "it's morally correct for the strong to rule and the weak to serve" correct?
@@0xPRIMEgs No. Clearly you haven't. I recommend you check out Pocket Guide to Objectivism, by the Atlas Society as a primer so you can understand what it actually stands for.
@chrisxdeboy why though? You've literally told me nothing about it? I googled it, and what I previously replied to you is what I found about it, and when I asked if it was correct, you just said no and pointed me to a book.
@@0xPRIMEgs Because that book would give you better insight into what it's about... Like, what else?
Why don't people believe me when I say that I've done research and still don't buy it?
Heh, I took the challenge decades ago, and jumped full on into Christianity for many years, diligently reading and studying the Bible as if my life depended on it.
Always praying and asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and God's will.
Eventually, I came to realize that none of the reasons I had for believing could stand up to scrutiny.
And watching this video is more of the same.
Contrary to what Testify said, there are actually many atheist speakers and counter apologists who have long ago taken Butler's challenge, and no longer believe after deeply investigating the history of Christianity.
i started investigating christianity from a position of belief. i studied history, languages, manuscripts... now i'm an atheist.
Could you give an example of one? I myself am an atheist and am not asking rhetorically.
@AlexanderEllis-x7v An example of one of my reasons for being a Christian that I no longer found valid?
I'll give you two:
1. Begging the Question - I became very afraid of the notion of burning in Hell for eternity, and afraid that I would miss my chance to "get saved" from a fate worse than death.
Found out this is not really a good reason because neither Heaven or Hell has ever been demonstrated to exist in reality. It's only been words from ancient religious books or people's mouths.
They are indistinguishable from empty manipulative threats. So I asked myself, "why would a loving and truthful God expect people to accept a statement as true without adequate evidence, and threaten people to love him?"
If anyone resorts to threatening people with physical and emotional abuse just to get them to love them... I concluded this is very narcissistic and psychotic.
2. Arguments from Incredulity - I was once incredulous to considering how any other possibility than a "god" could have created our universe in it's current state.
Then I became aware of my own thought stopping techniques that I had adopted from the church, and found out that it's OK to use my brain and consider other possibilities that might not feel comfortable at first.
Incredulousness is kind of like willing ignorance. The church and most apologists are very skilled at trying to convince people that they should view any alternative idea of Christian creationism as "ridiculous", without providing adequate reasons.
This is only a surface level explanation, but there's SO much of my former faith tied to these points.
@AlexanderEllis-x7v I'm sorry. I sent you a response but it disappeared.
I don't know if it was a technical issue or because the channel owner decided to delete it.
I think my answer will show up in your email as a TH-cam notification. It'll probably be there in full.
My problem with Pascal's wager (and Butler's too) is that it is a cognitive manipulation based on a wrong evaluation of an outcome. It states that if you believe in God, but it does not exist, you lose nothing, which is false. Because actually you lose your limited time on Earth and, at least partially, your free will, because you voluntarily bind yourself with a strict rule set of a religion you believe in. I am not saying that religious rules are bad, but sorry, I want to eat pork and not spend 2 hours of my weekends to pray
Yo who else is ready for Christmas 🎅 ❤✝️
Real, I'm part of the 24th of December gang.
Im ready for CHRISTmas
@@Vandarky HYPE HYPE
A lot of snow started to fall and me and my dad cleared the snow but as soon as we finished, the same amount of snow fell down again
Me!!!!
Watching this video and reading this comment section is like taking a master class in entrenching beliefs. I left the religion/atheist scene, I spend my time trying to fix myself so I can try to make the world a little brighter without convincing other people they need to believe what I believe
That phrase "When you can present the strongest case for christianity and explain why you still reject it" breaks the entire argument for me. The strongest argument for any claim would be one that can't be shown to be untrue. I'll have to find every argument and check if anything speaks against them. Only if I find one that has no counter, I have found the strongest argument. That could be the first one I find or it could be dozens down the line.
If it's the first one, I won't have a much better understanding of christianity since I didn't have much exposure to the topic. If there are dozens before that with only one single point that renders the entire idea of christianity completely impossible, that one argument doesn't matter anymore since I have already shown the impossibilty of the entire concept.
The wager works only if I find several points of interest, show they are not convincing and then find one that is convincing which I can't refute. And also, I then would have to do that whole ordeal again for the next religion to break the many religions objection, since I have only checked two possibilties at that point. So I check the truth of Judaism next and find the exact same arguments convincing and am now stuck in two very similar yet different believe systems.
That being said: The most convincing argument to me is the flood of Noah. If that ever happened, the power of God is shown to be true. However, the egyptian and chinese dynasties show records before and after the flood supposedly happened, showing conclusevely that the entire world was not submerged by water and humanity was not wiped off the face of the earth. If you disagree with my assesment of the strongest argument, let me know which one you think is the strongest one and I will give it a look.
"The strongest argument for any claim would be one that can't be shown to be untrue." Is a trivial answer. This holds true for any claim. He's referring to an argument that may not be indisputable but provides enough evidence to make it unreasonable or illlogical to reject.
An example of this is the safety and reliability of vaccines. No one can present an argument that can't be shown to be untrue that guarantees safety for every vaccine administered; *however, there is such an abundance of evidence that suggest a general safety, effectiveness, and reliability of vaccines that antivaxxers are understood to be unreasonable and illogical in their disbelief/distrust in vaccines despite not having indisputable proofs*. That's what he's saying.
The power of God is shown more in the creation of the universe than the flood of Noah. We have multiple reasons to think the universe began to exist.
Okay. I myself am an atheist. So I don’t think any of the arguments I’ve seen so far have been convincing. But I wanted to point out that “presenting the strongest case for Christianity” isn’t necessarily going through every single argument. I think it just means steel man what you think is the best evidence/argument they have presented and show why you disagree. Obviously there could be more arguments that you just didn’t consider but I think you would be in the right intellectually speaking.
Oh and by the way. I think the bigger problem of the video is Tesify’s claim that we should look at the bolder claims. Personally I think we should look at the more basic claims like “a god exist”.
@JM-19-86 So the short form would be "The universe exists, therefor God exists".
The steelman could go two ways: First any version of the cosmological. They all define God into existance as the cause of the universe or rely on special pleeding since God never began to exist. So God could always be, but an infinite bouncing universe model is impossible. That way is not convincing and fails by applying different rules for either side.
The second steelman I can think of is that God started the universe by setting the laws of the universe and letting everything happen on it's own. In that case, God would "exist" outside the univere, wich is functionally the same as not existing.
By seeing the universe exists, I can see that existance exists. By seeing the universe began, I can see that there was a beginning. I don't know who or what that beginning was. To be "edgy as heck, boooiiii" I'll say the flying spaghetti monster caughed and one of it's meatballs turned into our universe. I have no way of determining the truth of either statement, so I don't know if Christianity of Pastafarianism is correct. Or any other religion with a creation for that matter.
I propose a counter wager. If a god sends people to heaven or hell based off of ignorance or luck, then there isn't any point in trying to get to heaven because the standards of getting there are completely arbitrary. So you can struggle to overthink which religion is right, and then overthink about whether or not you fit their vague description for hellbound or heavenbound people, or accept the fact that all religions are stupid for thinking that you will magically be wafted towards the correct one if you try hard enough to find it.
"If a god sends people to heaven or hell based off of ignorance or luck" - the false premise your entire argument rests upon and therefore fails because of.
The only reason people go to hell is sin (aka self destruction). Now show me the only realigion on earth, that explains in detail what sin actually is, and gives a clear explanation how God solved the problem of sin in humanity.
Not only Christianity is the only religion that established what sin is, how it originated and how to solve it, but also if Jesus is not God, whatever you do in this life it won't matter anyway. It's eather there is no god, or you're doomed in every other religion because you can not accomplish all the deeds they require perfectly, and you'll end up in their hell.
Study Christianity. Not only the Bible. You have writings of the church fathers, that explain thr history of establishing the church and the struggles they had against impossible odds, in a world conquered by paganism, they prevailed. How can it be?
God doesn't send people to hell out of ignorance, for whoever did not know the law will be judged of the law that was revealed to him( if someone only knew Buddhism his entire life, and was born into that life with no contacts to any other religion, he will be judged off that and be revealed the gospels after he dies)
God doesn't judge out of luck, everyone is given a fair chance to go to heaven, and God gives people way more mercy then you might think, some people who believed in God go to hell, and there's people who dint know Christ and went to heaven.
Some people are given more grace, in the sense they are luckier with more money, but ultimately everyone is given a chance of being with God.
Know this raises the question: why evangelize if people will be judged on the law revealed to them anyway? Because its much easier to get to heaven, and provides a much clearer pathway to salvation and a much better world(just look at the contributions of Christianity to the world), imagine a perfect map to get to disney world. Sure another less perfect guide could work, but why do that when theres a perfect, better one.
Of course, everyone is given a fair chance at salvation, never forget that.
Also few religions say " follow these rules or you end up in hell eternally", Buddhism doesn't say that, although i recall it has a concept of temporal punishment for bad deeds, Hinduism etc. I know Islam(and even some sects disagree) and Christianity, Judaism(I am not even too sure on that) and some other monotheistic religions. So there's few religions that even do that, that you have to rule out. And then other religions like Hinduism pose metaphysical problems that Christianity resolves.
@@LawlessNatei think he’s referring to people who have never heard of Christianity, even after Christ’s Resurrection. AKA eternal damnation from ignorance.
And those who would reject Christianity due to personal trauma from Christians AKA they were just unlucky they were exposed and scarred by bad Christians and thus given a negative personal view on Christianity altogether. So this would be by luck.
You also have people who were born in non-Christian families and regions and just lived life normally according to the customs and religion(s) of their region. But because those religions weren’t Christianity, they now have a huge bias for their religion, they are given an extremely unfair disadvantage in eternal salvation versus a person born and raised in a Christian country and by a happy Christian family. So another example of salvation or damnation through luck.
This is even more true for those in the same era as Christ’s resurrection. You just hear random followers of Jesus Christ spouting that he resurrected. And all you have to go off of is their word. Not much evidence other than the “why would a man knowingly spread lies and risk such a horrible execution unless what he is saying is truly true?” argument which isn’t really evidence but just logical reasoning and that’s if they ever happen to connect those dots together.
@@AxhenioShkurtiso people who are ignorant of God’s teachings won’t go to Hell?
Or they will go to Hell because they still sinned and haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their savior? Or would God ignore the “accepting Jesus Christ as your savior” requirement because it was literally impossible for them to if they never knew he existed in the first place? And thus God would do a case by case for these ignorant cases?
Or is there no mention of this in the Bible? And you just have faith that God wouldn’t be so unfair in judging those cases in which they have zero exposure to Christianity?
When I was an atheist/agnostic, in a deep inner crysis I asked myself "what if there is something else, no matter how stupid infinitesimal the chance may be, it makes sense to find it out. I have nothing to lose". In that season I began investigating about Miracles in general and in Catholicism/protestantism, and Neard Deah Experiences. That didn't convinced me completely but it set me on a path to finding Christianity, bear that, being atheist, for me it was hard to even conceive a higher power, let alone a personal God, and is a thing I struggled with during many years.
What convinced you?
@@Gonz-o8j nice fake story bro 🤣
@@lukaszspychaj9210 It's a common experience people go through. No reason to think it's fake.
God bless brother. Sometimes cradle Catholics don't know the gift they have. It can be very difficult for atheists to realize not just that there is a God, but one that actually cares about us. Or for Muslims to have their worldview shattered, but still come to Christ. `
@standard-user-name you can say the same for Catholics having their world view shattered
these discussions always come down to discussions about the historical credibility of the resurrection. and these are very weak
"the apostles would not die for a lie" or maybe the apostles simply believed that Jesus was the messiah?
God founded a Church, not a book. There are miracles happening to this day in Catholicism. Our Lady of Lourdes has a team of doctors on site to verify any healing claims; which are then often backed by the person's doctor at home.
Of course in the end this will require faith to believe. By design , as God wants to be partially hidden so we can have effectual free will.
do you agree that it's a bit odd for the result of not being convinced of something an infinite inferno (metaphorical or literal, either sucks)?
As someone confirmed in the Catholic Church, using the argument that there is more historical evidence for Christianity doesn’t go all that far given we unfortunately only have records of the New Testament to around the 2nd century, the gospels weren’t authored by eyewitnesses, and as the gospels were written, the oldest gospels displayed Jesus as less divine and more human where as the newer ones tend to write more about miracles and such.
Perhaps consider using the fine tuning argument instead?
Ngl, I have always used Pascal's wager as Butler's wager. I just assumed that is what Pascal had meant.
My brothers and sisters in Christ, if you still don't know what's wrong with Pascal's Wager (and why Butler doesn't fix it), here are some tips:
1. It's not evidence for the existence of God. It provides a reason to believe in God (even if the belief is not epistemically rational).
2. Look up 'Pascal's mugging'. Focusing on the infinite reward of highly improbable cases is very counter-productive.
3. This video assumes Christianity is special, because it has some unique features. But those features are chosen ad-hoc. Other religions have also unique features, not found in Christianity.
4. It is assumed atheists and apostates have not considered the evidence carefully. Begging the question: why do you think that?
5. Finally, if you assume one cannot be convinced without the Holy Spirit, why blame the unbelievers and why do we need arguments?
Christianity is special.
Unlike all other religions, Christianity is based on an actual real person and a historical event- the resurrection.
All other religions of the world are based on ideals.
@@cedward5718how do you know that's true?
@cedward5718
Please. Was Muhammad a real person?
Was prince Siddhartha a real person?
I would say just as much as Jesus was.
As for the Resurrection: it's a miracle claim. Can you find miracles in history with better evidence?
If you say no, then maybe you are just not well-informed.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285
Muhammad was an Arab warlord and never claimed to be God.
Buddha was an Asian prince who contemplated the meaning of life and never claimed to be God.
CS Lewis said Jesus was either crazy or who he claimed to be.
The resurrection wasn't just any miracle... it was witnessed by many disciples who were persecuted and killed for preaching Christ and repentance. Liars don't die for a known lie.
You, sir, are badly misinformed.
Most atheists are uniformed/lazy. Christians and other religions are guilty of this as well. It’s just that they have no belief system so not researching is I guess extra bad? And this does not reduce point in the video. Often religion leads people to a better life, what’s the cons of Atleast looking further into it? Just food for thought.
"Now, if Christianity is true, you gain truth, purpose, and eternal life"
That's all true, of course, but if Christianity is true you also FOUND GOD. But not just any god - the true God who is a person you can not only have a relationship with, but who actively wants a relationship with you. That's such a huge deal and it's missing from both wagers.
The first step towards a honest relationship is... to be honest.
God not only hides from us, he's not speaking clearly. He's... well, dishonest.
@@haitaelpastor976Pray tell, in what way is God dishonest in your eyes?
What a deep thought! If Christianity is true, the god of Christianity is is the true god .... Wow... Amazing! So insightful.
Definitely doesn't work with other religions. Let's try
If Islam is true then the Islamic god is the true god .... Dang... It looks like it works for Islam too. Mmmm I wonder why
@@haitaelpastor976no He is not dishonest
@@haitaelpastor976 you have to seek Him
The most important thing in Pascal defence is that he didn't want his wager to be a compleate basis of worldview of any person, but rather a starting point to taking action, to "taste" christianity and then other arguments for it will come naturally. It was like "try to know Christ" rather than "this reasoning is all you need".
Why not "try to taste Allah"?
@@realdragon First: when it comes to Pascal, that wager was set for atheists he knew and they had very limited options to know Islam.
Second: when it comes to contemporaty times, watch video above from 2:23 to 3:28. I mean, seriously; did you post your comment to mine before watching video it refers to? It sure looks like it.
@@mariuszgaaj2814 Flat earther died in make-shift rocket trying to prove Earth is flat, that must mean Earth is indeed flat because nobody would risk their life for a lie.
And did you forget religious wars? Just because someone is willing to sacrifice their life for religion that doesn't mean that religion is true, not only Christians sacrificed themselves
@@realdragon I don't recall that argument as: death for belief = proof of belief. It is rather: death of believer for belief = proof that believer who died believed the belief.
Those are circumstantial evidence; traces, not definitive evidence. Think of researching religion like detective researching crime scene, or a historian reading different sources describing one event. One trace is not enough, but when there is many of them, some versions of events seem more likely than others. Arguments for God's existence are like numbers or letters that are a part of a code to money safe: on their own they change little, but simultaneously they change a lot.
It is extremely rare for people to change beliefs as broad as view on religion just because of one argument, it is rather a combination of arguments that make "click" and open one's "soul safe" to God. But remember, as long you believe that "that one specific irrefutable argument that makes everything clear to everyone" exist, the "click" is less likely to happen. It is like watching at Mona Lisa from quarter inch distance with magnifying glass and claiming, that you see no woman and just stains of paint.
The thing is, one might know the part of a cipher, but recalls it wrongly (like you might heard correct argument about meaning of death of a believer). But good for you to watch videos like this one, hopefully you will see clearly the whole picture one day and became believer or well-informed critic of Christianity.
@@mariuszgaaj2814 You told me to watch video, but it seems you didn't understood it
"People don't willingly suffer and die for something they know is a lie". Literal quote from video, but it applies to to other religions too
1. Equivocation on Religious Practice
- Butler's Wager assumes religious practice is costless or low-cost, treating it as a "safe bet"
- However, religious commitment often involves significant life changes, time investment, and opportunity costs
- These costs undermine the claim that choosing religion is the rational "default" position
2. False Binary
- The wager presents a simplified choice between generic theism and atheism
- In reality, there are thousands of religions with competing claims and practices
- Even if we accept the wager's logic, it doesn't help us choose which specific religion to follow
- Following the wrong religion could be worse than no religion at all according to many faiths
3. Assuming Risk Neutrality
- The wager implicitly assumes people should be risk-neutral about existential/religious claims
- But many would argue we should proportion belief to evidence rather than potential consequences
- Using Pascal/Butler-style reasoning could justify believing in any unlikely scenario with claimed infinite rewards
4. Problem of Divine Hiddenness
- If a god exists and wants belief, why make belief a matter of pragmatic betting rather than clear evidence?
- A truly benevolent deity might value authentic belief over pragmatic hedging
- The wager seems to encourage insincere, calculated "belief" rather than genuine faith
5. Naturalistic Explanation
- The appeal of the wager may stem from evolved risk-aversion and pattern-seeking rather than sound reasoning
- Similar "better safe than sorry" logic could justify many superstitious practices
- We generally reject this kind of reasoning in other domains of life
6. Question-Begging on Religious Claims
- The wager takes for granted certain theological assumptions (e.g., that belief/practice affects afterlife outcomes)
- These assumptions themselves require justification and can't be merely assumed
- The logic breaks down if we reject these theological premises
1. Equivocation on Religious Practice
Butler’s Wager doesn’t claim religious commitment is costless-it explicitly acknowledges costs but points out the stakes are infinitely higher if Christianity is true. Life changes? Sure, but eternity trumps opportunity costs every time. The “default” position isn’t blind faith-it’s taking Christianity seriously because it offers uniquely compelling evidence.
2. False Binary
The wager doesn’t assume “generic theism.” It’s grounded in Christianity, which has evidence other religions lack-like the resurrection, proclaimed immediately in hostile settings by eyewitnesses. If you think other religions have comparable evidence, name one. You won’t, because they don’t.
3. Assuming Risk Neutrality
No one’s asking you to be risk-neutral. Butler’s Wager is about proportioning your investigation to the stakes and evidence. Christianity has unique historical claims and infinite consequences. Ignoring it while entertaining “any unlikely scenario” isn’t reasoning-it’s avoiding the obvious.
4. Problem of Divine Hiddenness
This isn’t about hedging bets; it’s about following the evidence. The “hiddenness” objection assumes God hasn’t left evidence, which ignores the historical basis of Christianity. The resurrection, for instance, is public, early, and hostilely attested-not exactly “hidden.”
5. Naturalistic Explanation
If “better safe than sorry” logic justifies superstition, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Butler’s Wager is based on evidence, not arbitrary fears. Christianity isn’t a superstition-it’s a historically grounded faith with unique claims no other religion matches.
6. Question-Begging on Religious Claims
Butler’s Wager doesn’t “assume” Christian theology-it invites investigation into whether Christianity’s claims hold up. If you dismiss the premises without engaging the evidence, you’re not critiquing the wager-you’re avoiding the challenge entirely.
In short, these objections are a mix of strawmen and misunderstandings. Butler’s Wager isn’t about blind belief or shallow reasoning-it’s a call to serious, evidence-based inquiry. If you think these points refute it, you’re dodging the real argument. Try again. You're just proving that you need to take Butler's advice.
@@TestifyApologetics 1. On Religious Practice & Evidence
* The claim of "uniquely compelling evidence" is circular - all religions claim unique evidence
* The Nicene Creed itself was a political document created in 325 CE to enforce orthodoxy
* It was literally voted on by bishops under Constantine's pressure
* Many core Christian doctrines (Trinity, nature of Christ) weren't settled for centuries
* Early Christians had wildly different beliefs before orthodox suppression
2. On Historical Claims
* "Immediate proclamation by eyewitnesses" is false:
* Paul's letters (earliest texts) contain no eyewitness accounts
* Gospels written 40-70 years later by non-eyewitnesses
* No contemporary Roman/Jewish records mention resurrection
* Stories grew more supernatural over time (compare Mark vs John)
3. Other Religions' Claims:
* Buddhism: Emperor Ashoka's inscriptions provide contemporary evidence
* Islam: The Quran's compilation was better documented than the Bible
* Mormonism: Has signed eyewitness statements for golden plates
* Hinduism: Has continuous textual tradition older than Christianity
* Zoroastrianism: Influenced Christianity's concepts of heaven/hell/Satan
4. Problems with "Historical Basis":
* No original manuscripts exist
* Earliest fragments are from 125-150 CE
* Major textual variations between manuscripts
* Known interpolations (e.g., longer ending of Mark)
* Contradictions between Gospel accounts
* Non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus) are later and disputed
5. On "Hostile Attestation":
* No contemporary hostile sources exist
* Later Roman mentions (Tacitus, Pliny) only describe Christian beliefs
* Jewish sources (Josephus) show signs of Christian interpolation
* No enemy accounts of resurrection despite claimed public nature
* Why didn't Jewish leaders convert if evidence was compelling?
6. Evolution of Doctrine:
* Early Christians disagreed on:
* Jesus's divine nature
* Relationship to Judaism
* Resurrection (physical vs spiritual)
* Scripture interpretation
* Salvation requirements
* Orthodox Christianity won through political power, not evidence
The "Infinitely Higher Stakes" Problem:
* Islam also claims infinite stakes
* Hindu karma has eternal consequences
* Buddhism warns of endless rebirths
* Pascal's Wager applies equally to all these
* Can't use stakes to determine truth
Modern Scholarship Shows:
* Most NT books are pseudepigraphical
* Gospels contain fictional literary devices
* Christian doctrine developed gradually
* Pagan influences on Christianity
* Natural evolution of beliefs
Butler's Wager rests on historically inaccurate assumptions about Christian origins and uniqueness. The evidence points to Christianity as a human movement that evolved through natural historical processes, not divine revelation.
@@TestifyApologetics Look, I know you make money off of this, but at least personally know it's a man-made movement, not "divine"
@@theamerican6646oh ok cool now assume my motives. You should be a psychologist.
@@TestifyApologetics I'm pretty sure I had another comment that got deleted here. You have three motives: One because of money, another because of fame/prestige, and the last because of "Heaven". Also, I'm not an atheist, I am a panentheist. A much more coherent ideology than the naïve desert religion of Christianity
Bro !!!!
Catholic here -- Wasn't familiar with Butler; but, long time viewer, subscriber, and appreciator of your channel. You've done lots of great videos but this video may be my favorite... Excellent ! I have thought something like this so many times. This fleshed it out in a very succinct kind of way. It would be *very* cool to see a video that parses out and compares several of these religions' claims, in a slower, more thorough way, to drive this point home even farther. Thanks !
If I recall, Pascal's wager was created when he was talking to friends, this upgrade to work on a larger scale is really just the natural conclusion of Pascal's wager
Idk man. The only truth that I've learned in life is that everything that is true feels uncomfortable. It's too comfortable that there's a God that loves me so much that he sent his son to die for me. This most essential belief of Christianity sounds like deception.
Gang I'm an atheist, not an antitheist. I won't do all of that simply for the fact that I actually don't feel like it. To believe in "the resurrection of Jesus Christ," I would have to believe in everything else throughout the Bible. The Israelite slaves in Egypt, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, even more smaller issues. I will never believe in Christianity, or probably any other religion again, simply because I would have to reject my already sturdy knowledge (and beliefs) about the world. It would all be a waste of time if I were actually to thoroughly investigate it.
My Bible teacher in school did this
He grew up Christian but left the faith, then, at a low point in his life, he decided to search for the truth, he found out that Christianity is the only worldview to make sense and be true, now he is a great pastor, apologist, and teacher
I did something similar, except I never actually lost faith. I just got close.
The biblical God does not make even the tiniest sense.
@@haitaelpastor976 why would an infinite God have to fit in human understanding, if anything, the complexity of Christianity is proof that it is true
Plus, the understanding of our God isn't how you disprove or prove Christianity, it's about the evidence and facts of the life of Jesus
And if you really want to prove to me Christianity is wrong, do one thing, disprove the resurrection of Christ, because without it, our faith is meaningless (and I'll give you a hint, you can't disprove the resurrection)
@@JesusisLord756 I was about to say this myself
@@haitaelpastor976 --- You mean the one who commanded Israelite soldiers to slaughter infants, and allowed masters to savagely beat their slaves with impunity because they're their "property"? Who commanded the execution of gay men? The same god who is said to have drowned untold numbers of newborns and toddlers in a worldwide flood? That god?
This is the more theological-IRL version of "Take a gamble that love exists and do a loving act"
red dead redemption 2
@Horizon-Droid I was just waiting for someone to recognize the reference!
Pascal wager was also not about forcing belief. He also gives reasons why Christianity is more reasonable and explains the world better than say Islam. I suggest anyone who has the misguided view that Pascal was trying to tell people just to force themselves into belief to read Peenses. It's the collection of writings he was working on when he died that actually includes his arguments and thoughts on the matter. What confuses me is that a few years ago I think I remember this channel making a video debunking some of the same misconceptions about Pascals wager that this video promotes. Maybe it was a different channel and I am misremembering, but I would be interested in hearing what changed the owner of this channels mind about Pascals wager if it was indeed him.
Thank you for this. I have read the pensees, and Pascal is done dirty all the time by people who have never read him.
@Th3BigBoy Yes, it confuses me in this place as I could have sworn Testify did a video just a few years back about how Athiests misunderstand that wager and directly refuted multiple points he makes in this very video. Kinda strange.
Butler's addition does nothing to solve the many gods objection though. It's still gambling on one god, of countless others
Talk about missing the point. Butler’s Wager *specifically* avoids blind gambling by prioritizing investigation into the religion with the strongest evidence-Christianity. If you think “countless others” have comparable evidence based on the criteria I laid out in the video and specifically spelled out in the video in the end screen, feel free to name one. Spoiler: you can’t.
@@TestifyApologetics "Evidence" for Christianity is so unbelievably poor, and cherrypicked. You have decided that the evidence for your religion is better than everyone else's. (Spoiler alert, everyone thinks that) Furthermore, it is easy for me to say that countless others have equitable evidence, because they all have just about 0. Beyond the bible, (The very same book making the claim) and all your other claims (Again all found in the bible, once again the book making the claim), you have none. This is remarkably poor evidence
I mostly disagree with this video. First of all, you keep addressing Pascals Wager as an argument for belief in Christianity, its an argument for being a Theist, you can use Pascals Wager whether you are Muslim Christian Theist etc, its not exclusive to Christianity. Second of all, I dont have a problem with Pascals Wager as an argument for being a theist, however I do have a problem with it being an argument for God, since it isn't really an argument for God, but its an argument for believing in God, which are different things.
Just don't divide stuff
He was addressing Butler's Wager throughout most of it
Like most points made on this channel, the "stronger evidence for miracles" argument is deeply dishonest. Every religion that ever "won out", as it were, and became established, quite obviously did so against an equal amount of skepticism and hostility. That Christianity *definitely* made miraculous claims from the start and Buddhism or Islam only *probably* did so, is not a testament to Christianity's truth, only to Christianity's spotlight, and to the literary refinement of the pagan Hellenistic world where it originated. It's still almost certainly not true that Buddhism or Islam started out being perfectly materialistic and void of any supernatural claims. What you have shown is a very shallow difference in (not even a comparative lack of) evidence, which, say it with me now, isn't evidence of absence.
If I were to accept this argument, then I should start with Aum Shinrikyo, since for them the evidence that they made miraculous claims from the start is even stronger than it is for Christianity: the gap isn't hundreds of years as with Zoroaster, it's not even a few decades as with Christ, it's zero, the gap is zero years because the earliest reliable evidence we have of that is contemporary.
So, using the criteria suggested in the video, I would sift through hundreds of doctrines before getting to Christianity. Dozens, even if I reject religions that didn't "win out" and those that don't conform to the wager, i.e. don't assert themselves as the sole and irreplaceable truth.
But suppose I start with Christianity anyway. How much of my time and effort should I dedicate to researching it? Reading one more book, considering one more argument etc will always be a very moderate amount of effort compared to the rewards of being genuinely converted. So it's an exact replica of a gambler's train of thought- the cost of a lottery ticket is negligible compared to possible winnings, right?
But, exactly like with a lottery, before evaluating properly whether considering Christianity is a good wager for you or not, you need to know in advance >the probability of your conversion< - otherwise the average winnings are impossible to calculate.
This doesn't apply to Pascal's wager, because in it you're definitely converting right away- with Butler, you're merely *trying* to get converted, which means no amount of consideration will definitely get you the desired result. You can spend your whole life reading patristic literature and remain an atheist, as, no doubt, many people did. So when should you stop?
1. "Christianity only succeeded because of Hellenistic literary refinement."
This is laughable. Christianity wasn’t born in some cushy cultural spotlight-it exploded out of a marginalized, persecuted group in a Roman-occupied backwater. It wasn’t Hellenistic refinement that propelled it; it was the bold, public proclamation of a risen Jesus, made in the very city where He was crucified, under hostile scrutiny. Compare that to Buddhism’s centuries-later miracle stories or Islam’s belated hadith collections. Not the same.
2. "Every religion faced equal skepticism and hostility."
No, they didn’t. Christianity spread in a context where claiming Jesus as Lord was a death sentence under Roman law. Apostles weren’t spreading rumors for clout; they were imprisoned, tortured, and executed for their firsthand testimony. That’s not the story of “every religion”-it’s unique to Christianity.
3. "Aum Shinrikyo is a better fit for the wager."
Oh, please. Aum Shinrikyo’s claims are contemporary, sure-but they were demonstrably fraudulent, tied to a dangerous cult leader, and rejected by their own culture. Meanwhile, Christianity’s claims-like the resurrection-are rooted in public, hostilely attested history and transformed the Roman world. False equivalence much?
4. "When should I stop investigating Christianity?"
When you can steelman its arguments and demonstrate you’ve honestly considered its unique claims. Until then, you’re the gambler avoiding the ticket booth while complaining about the odds. The cost of investigating Christianity is small; the stakes are infinite. You can laugh at that logic, but you’ve yet to refute it.
If you spent as much time investigating Christianity as you did writing this pseudo-intellectual rant, you might actually have answers instead of excuses. Try harder.
@@TestifyApologetics I appreciate that you took time to reply at all, considering the total number of comments under your videos, however your reply doesn't actually address (or appear to understand) a single point I have made beyond simply reiterating what you stated in the video, so I will not be engaging in this conversation any further. Cheers.
"Cheers" - how someone bows out when all their points are addressed and they have nothing left.
@@TestifyApologetics You ask for a steelmanned argument, yet none will satisfy you. I ask for a standard of evidence, and none presented to date has satisfied me. I guess you'll go on being a disappointment to god for failing to convert non-christians and i'll go on happily with my beliefs without feeling the need to test them against random internet people as though my relationship with spirituality isn't secure.
I was interested in seeing some good discussion, but your attitude is just deplorable. It's like you actually think less of people who are willing to engage with your challenge and come out the other side of it still wanting to have a discussion.
I'll just close this out with a question that I'd like you to reflect on: For what reason do you study apologetics other than vanity?
I won't be replying because a.) I don't care, and b.) i can't be bothered. Which both say something, considering I've read your book of stories in its entirety several times, alongside analyses of historical works that corroborate the existence of Jesus, the man.
2:30 I'd like to test your knowledge of this: can you, without looking, tell who announced it (kind, gender, number, pose) and how many women saw that?
2 women saw him near the empty tomb and his 11 deciples preached about the resurrection until they were killed
@TheFullAutomaticShermanShow I think you've confused some things. There were two angels in the tomb, but only one actual witness. She discovered that the tomb was empty and brought some disciples, but Jesus came to her when she was alone. It's in John 20
I have an entire video on this. If this is your best, you're failing the challenge.
@TestifyApologetics I wasn't participating in any challenge. I was just testing your knowledge. But now I'd like to see the video. How can one easily find it?
see my series of responses to Ehrman
Can you explain why Christians should not also apply 'Butler's Wager' to all other religions? Even if you believe Christianity is true over atheism, how can you be sure it is preferable to any other religion without a deep and in depth understanding of all other religions. The same logic applies: small cost of entry, huge stakes.
If you haven't deeply researched all other religions and fairly come to the conclusion that a single religion is the most likely to be true, you're not really any different to an athiest who's never read or cared about Christianity. Ultimately, this line of reasoning leads to a flaw in Butler's Wager in my opinion, similar to flaws in utilitarian thinking. In the same way people don't donate all their life savings to charity, even though this would maximise happiness, it's not reasonable to ask people to dedicate their entire lives to studying all religions in great depth to maximise their chance of a positive afterlife.
it's literally addressed in the video and in the video at the end screen
@@PotatoSlices athiest when they realize that they fallen into a trap😡
@@TestifyApologetics No it's not. You made some very weak arguments for why Christianity should be the 'first' religion to look into, but you didn't make any argument as to why you should stop there. If all you ever did to secure yourself in your faith was to look at which religions had the most outrageous claims about miricles, and then rudely depict all other religions gods as wojaks, you don't have a very strong basis for your faith. You also provided no reasoning as to why your criterion (the time since the leading figures death that claims about their miricles were made) is the best to judge a religion by. Why not age, or volume of scripture, or historical references. You arbitrarily picked a criteria to judge religions by, declared Christianity the winner, and patted yourself on the back.
Ive always read pascals wager as "if youre in a room on fire, and theres 100 doors in front of you, even if you think each of those doors leads to more fire, no one would refuse to open at least one of the doors for the chance that theres a way out." Its not an argument for the existence of God, its an argunent for why religion has any sort of personal value. It gives you hope.
This argument fails immediately if the person you're using it on doesn't agree that the evidence for Christianity is "uniquely strong" among the infinite other conceivable religions.
You wouldn't convince any atheist I know this way. Maybe some agnostics who are on the fence about christianity specifically. But it's hardly a solution to the problem of many gods.
Also, the argument presented from 2:20 onward is very weak. The gospels (which were not even developed by eyewitnesses) become more miracle-filled the later they were written, just like the other religions mentioned. Further, just because someone puts themself at risk to testify something does not make their wild paradoxical claims any more true.
I would recommend everyone watch "the impossible game" by ThereminTrees on this topic.
You really should take my advice-this is genuinely bad.
Name one non-Christian miracle claim that avoids being distant from its origin, aligns with no preexisting biases, is detailed and specific, reported immediately, serves a significant purpose, and isn’t self-serving. Spoiler: that’s what sets Christianity apart from the pack.
You’re ignoring the fact that I’ve got two playlists with over 30 videos unpacking why the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. The whole “legendary development” narrative? It’s been repeatedly debunked and left in shreds. I have the receipts, just ask me. The fact that you can’t even steelman the argument shows just how badly you need to engage seriously with this.
And then you drop Theramin Trees? Bro, that’s your source? A guy who couldn’t steelman Christianity if his life depended on it? Yeah, you definitely need to rethink your approach.
@@TestifyApologetics The gospels don't contain eyewitness accounts, even most new testament scholars agree on that. And even, for the sake of argument, let's say they did: No rational person would take personal testimony as good enough evidence for the miraculous suspension of the laws of nature. Especially not when such claims were so common in that era. It seems like you can't even steelman your own argument if that's the evidence you want to use to convince people.
And mate, Theremin's video isn't just about Christianity, it's about all the religions that think they're special and everyone else is wrong. Maybe you would learn something from watching it.
@cactusking so basically Hume. Hume who says not to investigate a miracle. Hume who blocks entry of inquiry. 😂😂😂
@@TestifyApologetics Not blocking inquiry at all. Simply stating that if you want to convince anyone of your religion, it is more reasonable for you to present evidence that your god exists than it is for you to "challenge" others to waste their own time searching for it. If you had any actual evidence this would be easy for you. Unfortunately you don't because the omnipotent, timeless christian god concept isn't even logically coherent.
if a miracle happened in the past, how would you know if there is never enough testimony to overcome a low prior? You can't see that's an epistemic hole that you can't dig yourself out of?
21st century.
People still think there are some gods and that religious cults are correct.
What a sad state of affairs.
Isn't this argument applicable to other religions as well? If you investigate other false religions, you only lose time, but you gain the truth if the religion is true.
There needs to be a good reason to investigate a religion. Christianity has miracle claims that are early, close to the events, and in the face of opposition. These claims separate Christianity from other religions. If other religions can pass the same criteria, then we should investigate them too.
@@TestifyApologetics
correct me if I'm wrong, but miracles themselves say nothing about who or what caused them, nor do they increase the reliability of anyone who claimed to be the source of the miracle (as you can't really show that it's him/her that caused the miracle). Besides, just because someone firmly believes in something to the point they give up their live for it it doesn't mean that what they believe is correct.
Youre just arbitrarily inventing these criteria to say your religion is the best
i literally address the texas sharpshooter fallacy in the video I link at the endscreen. you should try watching it. it's not my fault that there's good evidence for what I believe.
@@TestifyApologetics
Besides the fact that it's is a little portion in the end of the linked video, it's also just asserting that the arguments presented were free from the influence of sharpshooter fallacy rather than actually explaining how.
All Butler is really saying is, because the consequences of being wrong are grave, you should invest time in giving it a fair shake. I would say there is nothing wrong with exploring, learning about, and investigating religions.(regardless of the potential consequences to being wrong,) and If doing so compels you to believe one of them, then so be it.
Though this could really be summed up in a far more general way. Don't be a slave to bigotry (in the context of being irrationally committed to your opinions,) and avoid confirmation bias. That goes for anything, consequences of being wrong aside.
I like the part where he says allah and proceeds to show an idol 1:16 😂💔
He is an idol
How else would he show allah?
@@signbear999 He can't (or at least shouldn't), as images of people, gods, prophets, etc are idols in Islam.
Man this video could’ve been really good if you didn’t insist on Christianity over all other religions. As far as I’m concerned butler’s wager applies evenly to all religions and the only good reason to pick Christianity first is because one of them has to be. I almost wish this was just a video encouraging people to study theology in general
So Pascal's wager with an added "Educate yourself" tacked on. I've gone through so many apologetic books from "evidential" stuff like Case for Christ to more philosophical attempts like Is God Real . I've even had Darth Dawkins run his presup on me and suffered through Van Til's The Defense of the Faith.
At the end of the day the only argument I give a nod to is personal experience. Other peoples experience is not evidence for me, but it would be for them so if that's why someone believes I see no problem with it. Beyond that, from the historical to the philosophical I would say there is no reason to believe in Christianity being true.
I'm sorry, but your comment suggests that you have a very shallow understanding of what I'm talking about in this video. Clearly Butler is suggesting the polar opposite of presuppositional apologetics, which assumes it's conclusions from the outset. I recommend that you read the books listed in the description. Also, please note that Lee Strobel's book is barely an introduction to this topic. If you read only that far, then you didn't go very far.
@@TestifyApologetics Of your list I've only read a few. Lewis, Pitre and Blombergs book on John. If you consider those compelling I'm afraid the rest will not help here.
You may like their arguments. Honestly I was interested in Blombergs attempt to defend John as historical (that's an insane idea, but he makes a good go at it regardless. I respect the attempt). The substance is no better to me than Strobel. People who have a faith and are trying desperately to find reasons for it. That's the core issue with apologetics, the presups are just more direct about it. None of their arguments are moving at all, because they all start form the assumption that their beliefs are correct. People who convert don't do so because of these books, these books are for people who already believe. That's why they are written by theologians like Pitre and Blomberg instead of historians.
People convert due to personal reasons. Loved ones. Experiences. Community. I originally became an atheist because a Sunday school teacher told me I would burn in hell for eternity if I didn't accept Jesus. Now I've studied quite a bit of philosophy over the three decades after that event so I can argue my position, but I do that for fun.
Bruv. Saying "I read some books" without pointing out what is wrong with the contents and then moving into some armchair psychoanalysis isn't a rebuttal. It's lazy.
@@TestifyApologetics Ah, so now we move on from the "you read the wrong books" to the "you didn't address specific issues in my books" part of this. I'm not here to pull apart your favorite books. I'm responding to your wager. I've looked into it, found the arguments and evidence for Christianity insufficient and that's really it. No matter what the wager is anything multiplied by zero is zero. That's the chance in my mind of your religion corresponding to reality.
I figured I would try to talk a bit like a person and communicate some personal stuff, talk about what I think the reason for all the books feeling the same to me is but I guess that's armchair psychoanalysis. In any case I didn't mean to make you defensive. I guess that means you're doing the apologist thing correctly though. In any case I'll leave you with a quote from my favorite book: "Don't live as if you had endless years ahead of you. Death overshadows you. While you're alive and able - be good."
@@swiftkillt7005they are not insufficient
I don't have any issues with being intellectually open to Christianity or Theism broadly but the challenge doesn't really do the work that Pascal's Wager does. There's issues with Pascal's Wager but at least the conclusion of it is going to be something like 'Therefore you ought to believe Christianity is true' or 'You have reasons against taking a non-Christian view', but this challenge doesn't have a conclusion by the very nature of it being a challenge rather than an argument.
There are no gods. Save each other. No one is coming to save or judge you.
This was all obviously concieved before modern psychology and biases such as selection and so forth were discovered
yeah, ok. I think the "problem" here is that the people who "deeply investigate Christianity" often become atheists for doing so.
really? how many well-informed atheist critics do you know? can you name a few. I can think of only a handful, and even they stumble on the historical argument.
@@TestifyApologetics What "historical argument?" That "evidence" for the ultimate creator of life, the universe, and everything can be found in some obscure text in some dead language. C'mon man, there are plenty of "well-informed" atheist scholars and there are plenty of "well-informed" Christian scholars. Which is exactly what we would expect if the "historical argument" was inconclusive, at best.
so steelman the argument, give me the elevator pitch at least
I used to think Sam Harris was at least an honest new atheist but then he went and said a parable was Jesus telling people to go slaughter unbelievers.
@@TestifyApologetics You say Christianity is "public, early, and bold," and therefore "it makes more sense to start with Christianity," (3:21). This is your "steelman," right?
Even if I grant that those characteristics differentiate Christianity from other religions, I don't see why any of them are particularly important, but again, for the sake of argument.
I'm no scholar of ancient texts, but other people are, and they don't agree on the extent to which public proclamations of Jesus's resurrection were particularly notable. Besides, proclamations of a resurrection are not evidence of a resurrection.
Those made those proclamations did so in a hostile environment, apparently. But even if they did, that doesn't make the proclamations true. Even today we see people make "proclamations" in hostile environments, so its hardly surprising. At best, it shows that these people believed their proclamations, but again, so what? That doesn't make the proclamations true.
You fault other major religions for being written down long after the events took place, but its unclear why that should be a problem. Besides, even the most generous accounts put the gospels as being written at least decades after the events took place. If its a problem, its a problem for Christianity as well, if its not, then you have no reason no to "deeply investigate" other religions as well.
At the end of the day, it seems to me clearly a pretense that Christianity is substantially different than any other religion, and the 'reasons" to believe Christianity are no better than the reasons to believe any other religion.
Personally, I like the way Richard Rorty put it, "religion dates to a time in human history when the conditions of life were so bleak and the prospect of improvement was so remote that people took refuge in fantasy. But now we realize that we can pin our hopes on nothing more than the prospect of a better life for future humans."
You cannot rightly disregard so many other religions’ boldest miracle claims because they came centuries after the fact while praising the supposed miracles of Jesus. They have the same problem! When it comes to the bible, the earlier the text was written, the more Jesus’ stories made him out to be a normal guy. The later you go, the more supernatural he becomes.
Ive always dunked on pascals wager. And it was the real life institution of Butlers wager that got me to christianity. My then fiance demanded of me that i *TRY* to believe. And after a time of investigation, i did.
That’s fantastic! Glad your with Christ dude ✝️
A bishop stands at the pulpit and starts with his sermon: "my flock, today, we are going to talk about our daily bread". A flock of geese sitting in the pews, rise up their wings in excitement and shout "testify brother!! testify!!!"
It is clear that you spent more time trying to edit in the gigachad and soyjak templates than to actually come up with a decent "challenge". Nice bait though.
As a someone who started as a Christian and actually believing that God was real and praying every day and going to church every Sunday. As well as all my friends and family doing the same thing since I am from a religious and third world country. I was extremely serious with what I was believing in and it took me awhile to break away from the toxic relationship which was about age 19. The main reason which atheists almost never uses and another supplementary reason for Abrahamic religions.
The main reason is, if there is a God that is just and all-good then there is no need to believe or know this God. That is all. Assuming we are talking about a just and all-good God as well as all-powerful.
The first problem would be the afterlife he would see what you have done and judge you according to that and create a punishment equal to what you have done. NOT automatically put you in hell for not worshipping or believing in him.
The thought of a God who created everything as big as the biggest star and as small as a quark with all the complexities of the universe would want worship and belief is laughable. That is a HUMAN trait, it is what a human would want and that's why people think it's what God wants. That's why it's called a MAN-made religion. Not to mention if he really wanted that then he would've made all humans inclined to worship him and only him (yes free will blah blah we will get into that) as well as made himself known and easier to find (like the sun, some Carlin references).
The supplementary reason is, I will touch on the topic quickly. The all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing contradict each other. The omnipotence paradox is too easy. If he's all-knowing then he knows the future thereby knowing what you will do and would invalidate your free will. No free will means he let evil do its thing. Even assuming that free will is present, there is still evil such as natural disasters earthquakes the movement of tectonic plates are not caused by man's free will. Even if it was, there is still evil which would contradict all-good. One has to give out of the three.
"The main reason is, if there is a God that is just and all-good then there is no need to believe or know this God. That is all. Assuming we are talking about a just and all-good God as well as all-powerful. "`
Hell is a willing disconnect from God. He will not force you to be with Him.
"The thought of a God who created everything as big as the biggest star and as small as a quark with all the complexities of the universe would want worship and belief is laughable. That is a HUMAN trait,"
God is a person. A perfect person as far as we know, but He still desires love. While we can have the gift of knowing why we are here, or how we got here. God may not. God simply exists, He simply is, and will be, forever. How long has He existed ... alone ? He made us for His love. And we rejected Him and killed Him brutally.
" The all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing contradict each other. The omnipotence paradox is too easy. If he's all-knowing then he knows the future thereby knowing what you will do and would invalidate your free will. "`
I agree, but this is not the only possibility. I've been thinking that God knows contingent futures, based on respecting our free will. He chooses to respect our free will, because He can be as powerful as He wants, but you can never force love.
@@standard-user-name
"Hell is a willing disconnect from God. He will not force you to be with Him."
What does this have to do with judging based on what you do good?
You are still saying that no belief = hell which is not a just nor a good God which I don't mind going to hell for, because that God is evil what's the point in worshipping in him. Don't forget that other people who are unaware of his existence get the same outcome.
"God is a person. A perfect person as far as we know, but He still desires love."
Your definition of God has very human limitations, this is the first time I have heard of it. Not worshipping does not mean rejection or killing him brutally.
Okay so, He made us so that he has someone to interact with. Then... interact/talk with people then? Let me ask you a question then, if you imagine a couple that love each other or you loving someone. Tell me, do you imagine one worshipping and praising the other while the other person wants and is addicted to more worship.
"I agree, but this is not the only possibility. I've been thinking that God knows contingent futures, based on respecting our free will."
This is the first time I have read a theist agree with this straight up and not argue. The point still stands because he still knows the future. The only way is if he doesn't know the future. Contingent futures is how we think. From the word all-knowing, He already knows what you will do, in the same way you will respond to this comment. I don't know if you will or not (contingent futures) but he knows you will do and knows exactly what words (future).
I've been saying this and was confused as to why so few people were saying it too. THANK YOU BRO lol
Okay I considered Christianity and is still unverifiable claims written in a book not by eye witnesses but anonymous people that weren’t alive when supposed events took place. The only challenge is to take people who use the soyjack memes unironically seriously.
People don't suffer and die for something they know is a lie.
Lies are lies even if you don't know they are.
And.....?
@Theo_Skeptomai well some idiots crushed into the twin towers in promise of an eternal brothel.
Just because they died doesn't mean their promise land is true
@@And_stuff8as the video states, the difference is that they didn’t live during the time their prophet lived and claim to bear direct witness to his miracles
That's the stupidest thing I've heard today; people do die because of lies. Just ask the Muslims.
@@I_TacocatBut the problem is that we don't know how most of the apostoles died and even the ones who did die by the sword we don't relly know if they realy had the chance to go back on their beliefs.
A second possibility is that the apstopes did belithat jesus rose but that doe sot mean it happened
I think this is what Lewis meant when he wrote, "If Christianity isn't true, it's of no importance, but if it IS true, it's of the utmost importance."
"YOU see, Its not circular LOGIC when We do it"
You can't even account for logic.
Cannot even tell what kind of trolling is happening here.
Calling mere investigation circular is absurd-are you saying examining evidence for a claim somehow assumes its truth? That’s not circularity; that’s basic critical thinking. Plz tell me I'm missing something
@@johndoh795 Your 'logic' is literally "The book is the truth because it's written in the book". There's no way it's not circular logic lol
@@PitchBlack0000 The claim isn’t just based on the Bible itself but also on historical evidence and common sense reasoning. For example, we know from Roman historians like Tacitus and Suetonius that Christians were persecuted under the Roman Empire, often facing execution for their beliefs. Despite this, Christianity spread rapidly, even among people who had little to gain and much to lose by converting.
This persistence suggests that the early Christians truly believed in the resurrection of Jesus-something they claimed to have witnessed firsthand. While it’s true that people can die for false beliefs, it’s harder to explain why so many would willingly face death if they knew what they were promoting was a deliberate fabrication. This doesn’t prove Jesus performed miracles, but it supports the idea that the early Christians’ convictions were rooted in what they genuinely believed to be true, even under extreme pressure.
That is not circular reasoning, and nowhere does he even state something remotely to that. I believe only two apostles were recorded to have died in the Bible the rest are outside sources.
If you want more evidence take a look into Bible archaeology
@@JosephBoooyif those evidences are good enough there is no need for a wager you just become christian. And other people died for their believe and religion all the time its not exclusive to christianity. This video targets atheism but never talks about why should anyone pick christianity over atheism by choosing christianity to investigate you are presupposing that there is a God its a circular logic. If this investigation is based on evidence atheism is more logical choice since you have support of all science behind it. Its better to study and learn about natural physics and its has waaay more evidence than christianity
Pascal's Wager fails because it was written for a very specific scenario, and you're probably misapplying it. The entering argument is that you have already eliminated other gods from consideration.
Perhaps that is why when I grew up, Christians didn't want to face the concept of eastern religions. Doing so would show Pascal's Wager to be a false dichotomy between atheism and Jesus.
Over the past few years, I joked about the idea of reducing atheism by selling shintoism to weebs and otakus.
@skylinefever It's not, though, once you examine those eastern religions.
Hey Testify! You ever plan on doing videos on Hinduism and Buddhism? If you don’t, do you have any sources I can look into? I can’t even find many sources explaining the basics of these religions. Thanks
Not at the moment precisely because of some of the points raised in the video
@TestifyApologetics What point? You cannot apply the wager to non-Christian religions. Just cut yourself off? What if you're wrong?
I personally never really liked Pascals Wager. It's just a blind gamble as you stated.
Well yes, that is like criticizing something about something for being exactly what it is supposed to be.... what to do in the case of effectively a blind gamble. That is kinda the point. It makes strong philosophical and pedagogical points, but no it shouldn't be the entire basis actually of your faith or apologetic.
Some things do deserve to be criticized for being what they are intended to be.
@@jackattackhissnack Which doesn't really apply because there is nothing intrinsically wrong or worth criticizing with a risk assessment in a "blind gamble" situation because it is a risk assessment in a blind gamble situation. The problem is it just gets over-applied to things more than it should be, not that it is what it is lol.
This is what I'm trying to do right now, I was originally brought up Protestant Christian, then left the religion because I couldn't see why it would make sense. I got to the point where I was trapped in an echo chamber of my own beliefs, so I've been trying to open up to other worldviews, and understanding arguments, and I still believe religion is not the correct answer, but I now understand other people's views more effectively.
I'd highly recommend Mike Winger's youtube for deep, thoughtful Bible analysis and William Lane Craig for philosophical apologetics.
God founded a Church, not a book. Among other suggestions, I will suggest Trent Horn on TH-cam. David Wood too. For books I strongly recommend "Science at the Doorstep to God". And there's also GK Chesterton.
I grew up Catholic, fell in part for new atheist nonsense, but have recently come back to Catholicism. In less than a year He's helped clean my house, my soul, so much, it is incredible.
@@standard-user-name God did not found the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing even remotely resembling Catholicism existed until hundreds of years after Christ, and even then that organization was nothing like the Roman Catholic Church of today; you'd consider their beliefs heretical and they'd consider yours heretical.
The Roman Catholic Church, and all of its unique teachings, formed slowly over time long after Christ. You can track when certain beliefs first crept up, when they became more popular, and when they became the official views of the RCC (like worshiping Mary, praying to the dead, etc).
Do you think performing traditions made by men will save your soul? Do you know what God said in His word about this? "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men." If you think equating man-made traditions as somehow being teachings from God is valid then your worship of God is in vain.
As God encourages us in His word to do, read the Bible for yourself and believe what He tells us in it. If you do this then you will certainly be a Christian, but you certainly wont be a Catholic.
@@standard-user-name You said "God founded a Church, not a book."
So think the Bible isn't God's inspired word? Do you not see the issue with your "I'm totally a "Christian" but I don't belive that icky yucky Bible thing, gross!" attitude?
Jesus Himself said scripture speaks of Him. If you don't belive scripture it's because you don't believe what it speaks of, IE you don't believe in the real Jesus.
The scriputre that Jesus said speaks of Him also says God Himself said "In vaid do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of man." If you think that observing man-made traditions will somehow bring you salvation then you're dead wrong.
The scripture that Jesus said speaks of Him also says that there is only one single mediator between God and man, and that's Jesus Himself. Between you and God there's just Jesus, only Jesus, and no one else but Jesus. When the Catholic church claims that in order to get to God you need to first go through a Catholic priest, Mary, dead saints, etc they're contradicting God. The Catholic church is essnetially saying "Don't believe that lying liar Jesus who says you don't need we human beings in order to access God."
Also, you said "God founded a Church..."
It is a 100% certain fact of history that Jesus and his disciples had absolutely no involvement with founding the Roman Catholic Church that didn't exist until centuries after they died. You've put your faith in a 100% certaint-to-be-false lie of history. Misplaced faith is in vain and brings no salvation; your faith is in a lie made by man. The only faith that brings salvation is that which is placed in the real person of Jesus, and the one and only way anyone today can know who of the real person Jesus is by reading His word that He inspired to be written. God Himself wrote you the Bible and you reject it; at this rate when He juedges you He will say, as He inspired His word to say, "Depart from me, you worker of lawlessness. I never knew you."
The Catholic church saves no one; only God can save you. Your faith is int the Catholic church, not God. Pray to God, not to human beings like Mary, for guidence and forgiveness of your foolishness. Pray to God and God alone that He might show you the Truth.
@@standard-user-name You said "God founded a Church, not a book."
So think the Bible isn't God's inspired word? Do you not see the issue with your "I'm totally a "Christian" but I don't belive that icky yucky Bible thing, gross!" attitude?
Jesus Himself said scripture speaks of Him. If you don't belive scripture it's because you don't believe what it speaks of, IE you don't believe in the real Jesus.
The scriputre that Jesus said speaks of Him also says God Himself said "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of man." If you think that observing man-made traditions will somehow bring you salvation then you're dead wrong.
The scripture that Jesus said speaks of Him also says that there is only one single mediator between God and man, and that's Jesus Himself. Between you and God there's just Jesus, only Jesus, and no one else but Jesus. When the Catholic church claims that in order to get to God you need to first go through a Catholic priest, Mary, dead saints, etc they're contradicting God. The Catholic church is essnetially saying "Don't believe that lying liar Jesus who says you don't need we human beings in order to access God."
Also, you said "God founded a Church..."
It is a 100% certain fact of history that Jesus and his disciples had absolutely no involvement with founding the Roman Catholic Church that didn't exist until centuries after they died. You've put your faith in a 100% certaint-to-be-false lie of history. Misplaced faith is in vain and brings no salvation; your faith is in a lie made by man. The only faith that brings salvation is that which is placed in the real person of Jesus, and the one and only way anyone today can know who of the real person Jesus is by reading His word that He inspired to be written. God Himself wrote you the Bible and you reject it; at this rate when He juedges you He will say, as He inspired His word to say, "Depart from me, you worker of lawlessness. I never knew you."
The Catholic church saves no one; only God can save you. Your faith is int the Catholic church, not God. Pray to God, not to human beings like Mary, for guidence and forgiveness of your foolishness. Pray to God and God alone that He might show you the Truth.
pascals wager is bad
proceedes to yap about literally the same thing but with "well the apostles were opressed so why would they suffer for a lie"
you're just showing Butler is 100% correct
3:33 "You gain a stronger more informed understanding"
1. Quite some christians hardly understand what they believe.
2. It's possible to gain that understanding without becoming a christian.
3. I could have used the spend time to study topics I think more important and interesting.
Christ is the most important
@@marknieuweboer8099 These seem more like excuses for continuing strawmanning Christianity than logical reasons to avoid it. The first thing you listed is literally a fallacy.
1. That’s a straw man fallacy
2. Christianity is a result of the attempt to gain such understanding in researching it.
3. Seriously? What can be more important than your eternity?
@ MusicM: Christianity is a religion, not an argument. So claiming that I "strawman christianity" is nonsense in the most literal meaning of the word. Worse, I didn't make any claim against any aspect of christianity, only against a claim presented in this video. The logical fallacy is yours.
Try again.
@ Creep:
1. Nope, it's a fact relevant for the assertion I quoted. This epic failure of yours makes clear that you're not to be taken seriously. So I didn't bother to read the rest of your comment. A quarter of a century of internet experience has taught me that it only can get worse.
Try again.
The things about Pascal's Wager is that it's a final decider at the end of a long argument, and that long argument isn't really complete to begin with.
It's the conclusion, and not the summation, of Pensees; but that work is simply the compilation of notes of a book Blaise Pascal was working on at the time of his death.
I’m genuinely curious how slavery in the Bible is defensible, every video I’ve watched on the topic it seems like the Christian defending the Bible is losing bad. maybe I am misunderstanding but it seems like god is allowing slavery and even providing rules for it.
Actual question for anyone who’d like to respond btw
@@landonwhite7962 the pasages talking about rules of slavery are here to restrain somethung that exist anyway : if slavery has to exist, then it's better if it is done 'in the right way' if I can say, and don't just make a massacre. Additionally, the Exode and how God treated the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews is, I think, a clear example that He doesn't like slavery.
you should read Numbers 31, you're gonna love it the whole chapter is pure insanity
The OT wasn't supposed to be a perfect moral code, rather it was supposed to be progressing humans morally, which is why when you compare the slavery in the OT to the slavery around those times, its far better. Ultimately God was preparing hearts for the Messiah to come with a new and better covenant
@joe-cm4lz Completely pointless, if your fake god were really all powerful, he wouldn't need to go through all these steps.
@despot1zer0 since you seem to be all knowing, what would you have done and how can you guarantee it would've worked? Not only during that time but also for thousands of years in the future.
God didn't need to help humanity, He chose to help humanity. Again the OT wasn't morally perfect, rather it was to progress humanity, it sounds like you didn't read my comment.
The problem with Batler's wager is it is not clear what is enaugh. 1 hour. 10 hours. 100 hours. 1000 hours? And which one of Christianities. There are like 45,000 denominations of Christianity.
Alex O’Connor is a good example of someone who’s done this in my opinion
Faith as a matter of any kind of cost/benefit analysis sounds very much like
' “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. '
Matthew 7:21
Mr Manning, I think you've given the popular version of Pascal's Wager. Pascal doesn't think belief is like a switch; he states that behaving as if one believes is the best way to find faith for someone who has doubts. Pascal further claims that the effort in behaving as if one believes makes one a better person than one have been otherwise, so there is actually no cost to someone who takes that part of the wager. I love your channel and pray for you by name every night. Please, go back and take a look at a good translation of the what Pascal actually wrote. You'll find that what you have presented in your video is not addressing what Pascal actually wrote.
Why would God want people to believe he exists, why doesn't God simply judge us based on our actions ?
Because we would all go to hell for we deserve it. I think God gave me a fair chance with my free will and, even if I'm not the worst guy ever, I did enough, and everyone with me, to get in hell if we are judged that way. But Jesus-Christ, the living God, a perfect being, died for our sins so we don't have to be punished for them. Now we just have the choice to accept this gift and be with Gld, or to reject it so we will go to hell because rejecting God is rejecting the perfect good and the absence of perfect good is hell.
@@UnKoalaRougeDo you condemn genocide?
@@UnKoalaRouge Why do we deserve to go to hell. I mean sure all of us did some mistakes in our lives but I don't think these mistakes are worthy of eternal punishment
@@UnKoalaRougeWhy do we deserve it? Why does your phoney god supposedly make us that way?
@@rahulpaul147 I mean, it's for God judge this. And we anyway would deserve a punishment for what we did. God is just : he wouldn't just let us be after the bad things we did, we must face the consequences of our actions. But in his love he decided to take this punishment on himself
0:54 how is this different? Why not study Buddhism instead? Lol
The real issue one needs to consider and concern themselves with is that 99% of the gods you pick are chill, but the Christians have an evil god you must obey, so as a gamble, do you want to worship the evil god?
@@ExistenceUniversity Evil, Under what standards? There is no objective good or evil in an atheistic world view.
@alaskanredneck7930 Objective means the same as scientific
@@ExistenceUniversity No, no it doesn’t. Even the scientific method makes assumptions in order to exist. This is the crackers in the pantry fallacy, you cannot answer everything with science.
@@ExistenceUniversity first of all no it doesn’t, second of all even if that were the case you can show what good or bad morals are through science, so who are you to say my God is evil, it’s all subjective under your world view.
Well, I think there are several questions that still stand about this. What about a tribes-person who never had an opportunity to learn about Christianity? That would also mean they would go unbaptised, which would leave them unable to enter heaven, yes? In this case, I do not think there are any chances of probability for the tribes-person to learn about Christianity and also enter heaven. They may also unknowingly contradict the law of God without even knowing about it. I am open for debate, though. Please educate me about this if you can.
I don't think pascal's wager was ever supposed to be an argument for Christianity, rather, against atheism. Helps some atheists see how pointless a lack of belief is. Like a stepping stone toward religion
It also shows that Christianity is a protection racket. Would be a shame if you went to hell. Just believe this thing and maybe that won’t happen. Mafiaesque. Gods bad cop, Jesus is good cop.
@@hydrarl3869 Respectfully, it's not pointless. It allows us to look more into science than the religious, since we don't know what caused everything, we're constantly searching deeper and deeper into what did, creating very important discoveries in several subjects. Atheism may not give any "benefits" as it would be said, but it does allow you the most open starting point
I have to admit to being very puzzled with regards to your comment. Pascal's wager is fundamentally built on the hell and heaven claims of Christianity, the only way it comments on how lack of believe is 'poiuntless' is with regards to helping with getting a pay-off from those claims.
@@christiangreff5764 positive vs negative afterlife is a common religious theme, and the most popular 3 all have it, and yes, the payoff is the entire point of the argument. There is no utility in being atheist, so if you are being optimal, you would still choose to be religious, even if you have no faith yet, not a great mindset, but at least it gets people going the right way
@@hydrarl3869 But only within the very narrow frame of these assumed pay-offs, and those are basically worthless,; a point often made by using 'Pascal's mugging'? It's a thought experiment set-up to show how one would normally never follow this type of behavior. It goes like this:
Imagine you walk down an ally when some guy jumps in front of you. He claims to be almighty and if you do not give him 10 Dollar, you will suffer in hell for eternity. Would you believe him and give him 10 Dollar? I mean, it's only 10 Dollar and he threatens an infinite negative pay-off, after all. If you do give him the money, how much more could he have asked for and you would still have done so? If you did not, how much lower would his demand have to be for you to do so?
In plain words: Anyone can promise any number of arbitrary rewards and punishments for any arbitrary behavior. Optimal choices therefore have to weigh the promised rewards nad punishments with their likelyhood. Without further evidence, a basically zero chance negates the wild promises, with further evidence why would you need Pascal's wager?
This video is really kind of funny to me, because what you describe is almost exactly how I ended up leaving christianity as a child. I remember questioning my faith, and looking at many of the bigger christian apologists at the time, I found much of what they said to be unsatisfactory, so I took a KJB from the free bible rack at my church, and I read the whole thing. I came to the conclusion that the bible must not represent the truth, and if there is a God, and it is a god who wants me to know they exist, I will someday find the truth. Sadly I cannot say I have ever seen evidence for the supernatural and I don't really care anymore.
You will never know the feeling of an ex-muslim like me , i litteraly have no fear of jesus being the true god due to indoctrination . I simply never feel the fear of disbelieving in any god of any religion because i grew up indoctrinated that allah is the absolute truth and the one and only god , if there was a god he should’ve had a better way for us to know the truth . People like me are doomed in all religions.
Special pleading and presuppositions are doing some real heavy lifting in this video.
Ehh, Merry Christmas anyway.
Ah yes, "special pleading"-the go-to buzzword when you can’t actually refute what makes Christianity's *claims* at least unique and worth looking into, but still want to sound clever.
@ Lol, no.
The argument in this vid is basically all those other religions are fake, but not ours because it’s special. Our claims are cooler, not like the fake ones.
Source: trust me, bro. Because if you don’t trust me and accept our wild claims, well then your claims wouldn’t make sense.
Yeah, I’ll pass on that. No buzzwords needed.
There is not one evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Not one. End of story.
What do you want? A photograph? There's plenty of circumstantial evidence.
More or less i ended up taking this wager the way you described it last year.
If a thing is true no criticism can stand against it. If a thing is untrue then it will be revealed as untrue with enough searching.
to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Open your heart to Jesus Christ!
You might be missing a 'critical' between 'enough' and 'searching', which is the detail that makes all of that so difficult. There's a game designed to show that: One player has a specific rule for picking numbers and gives you the first two numbers following that rule (say 3 and 7). The other player can suggest new numbers (or chains of numbers) and get told whether they comply with the rule. Final goal is to guess the rule. It's super annoying but very effective at showing why critial questioning is so difficult.
@christiangreff5764 sorry I might be dumb or something but I have no idea what you meant by your comment
@@nikitaafanas Nothing to do with dumbness, all to do with me expressing myself unclearly (and rambeling).
I'll try to do better in a second attempt: It is easy to question believes. It is difficult to CRITICALLY question believes. The difference lies (in my opinion) mostly in how well one can step outside of the "model of the world" one is currently operating under.
An example would be the following: Suppose one believes in 'natural rights' (such as in the charta of human rights: all humans hold these inalienable rights). Questioning this might entail a thought experiment on how to convince someone of those rights. Now one can easily be tempted into answering "Well, that's easy, 'natural rights' are basically self-evident" since one is already convinced of that fact. Critical questioning would mean overcomming how these 'natural rights' seem self-evident to oneself (as someone who already believes them) and seriously considering how convincing one's arguments for them are to a person that does not already ascribe to them.
I hope I managed to make my point a bit more clear.
I actually did take the Butler's Wager a month or so ago, and I ended up with this as the conclusion of my research so far:
Based on all the evidence I have seen so far, it does indeed seem safe to assume that Jesus performed most miracles attributed to him. However, I have my doubts regarding his omnipotence and omniscience. A major reason for this is the resurrection story itself, as after his resurrection, Jesus only appears to his closest followers, and not publicly in the middle of Jerusalem, which would have absolutely destroyed any counter claim to Christian doctrine. Similarly, no extra biblical sources corroborate the darkness which fell upon the world when Christ was crucified, which would have been pretty important proof of Christianity.
However, the reason I am currently convinced that Jesus was not omniscient, is because Jesus consistently treats the events of the Old Testament, specifically the events of Genesis-1 Kings, as historical fact. However, there are serious problems with that being the case, the biggest being the timeline. We know from archeological evidence that the king Shishak mentioned in 1 Kings is almost certainly Shoshenq 1 of Egypt, who ruled between the years 943-922 BC, and who invaded modern day Israel in 925 BC. This lines up well with Biblical timeline. However, when Shoshenq is boasting of the treasures he won and the cities he looted, Jerusalem is absent from the list. That could be explained away still, but that leads to the bigger problem in timeline. If we follow the dates given in the Bible for the reigns of all kings up to this point, we get a date of 1047 BC for the coronation of Saul. However, we run into a problem here, known as Egypt. Because Egypt controlled the Levant from 1500 BC to sometime between 1155 - 1100 BC. So, the entirety of Joshua and Judges would need to have occurred in 100 years at max, which is contradictory to the timeline laid out in the bible itself. Thus, it seems, with all the evidence we have now, that the authors of the Old Testament were compiling the text together centuries after the fact based mainly on such oral tradition as was available to them. Now if Jesus is omniscient and omnipotent, he would not have affirmed the scripture which came before him as true; however, if he simply had the power to perform miracles, and he was raised in Second Temple Judaism and considered the scripture given to him as truth, then his actions make perfect sense.
Of course, I may be wrong, and I may yet receive a sign which makes me believe in Christ and his message. But for now, this is my current stance on Christian scripture:
Genesis-Joshua: Mythical, written well after the fact, exaggerated to the point of unreliability
Joshua-Kings: Mytho-History. All the kings are well supported by extrabiblical evidence post omri.
Chronicles: A rewriting of the above in the Second Temple
The Rest of Old Testament: Legends and moral teachings, mostly based off of the above.
The Gospels: Probably written by the apostles or someone who knew them 1st hand, but almost certainly written Decades after Jesus's crucifixion.
Acts: Probably autobiographical account of Paul
The Epistles: The opinions of very early Christians on doctrine. Some interesting stuff, but nothing which actually changes my beliefs.
Revelation: Reading this book reminded me a lot of early Old Testament, a very different vibe to all the others. I do not think this is a genuine revelation
One cannot take the wager in simply a month's time, and your comment here is far from a steelman argument against Christianity. I can recommend some reading materials if you want.
@@TestifyApologetics Perhaps not, but it is an explaination as to why my path doesnt align with Christianity for now. I also had a near death experience a year ago due to complications in surgery. During that experience, I did feel the presence of God, but I saw several persons within, including many of the Hindu deities my family worshipped therein. While I am young and do remain open to change (which is indeed why I read religious literature and apologetics), my current stance on on religion seems to preclude the option that there is only one path to salvation
@@mvalthegamer2450I like seeing these theological discussions because I frequently argue that such things cannot be known to me at the time.
3:02 Neckbeard Krishna made me laugh
Indeed, that is what a subhuman like yourself would say. It must make you glad to know Hindus are only born 😂 meanwhile the population has survived all manner of hardship for thousands of years longer than most other religions
Yes, a subhuman would say that. Fortunately for Hindus, they don't take converts or individuals with buyer's remorse