1 Corinthians 2 1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. [1] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
@@gabrielduran291 Ontology is preparatory to metaphysics. The majority of modern philosophers accept some logic and math ... and most atheists you could name are modern, not ancients. Basically Pythagoras plus Aristotle (empiricism). Aristotle himself worked in many areas, including ontology and metaphysics. Daniel Dennett would not count as an atheist as I mean it, because he has a metaphysics, that isn't reductionist.
Niche never ment God is literally dead... He just said the church that representints the God is dead... As in some new horizons!!! Maybe these horizons can give us something to help us, or at least strengthen our resolve and faith with the litteral God!!!
When I first heard the quote as a teen I thought he claimed God was dead literally, but in context it meant God was no longer needed to understand the world. We had Reason and Science to explain everything. God got thrown under the bus. But the original take, if you isolate the quote, was admitting God himself existed but had somehow succumbed to death. That's nonsensical about an almighty Deity.
That's correct but thank God literally He created an objective reality that'll punish people for not recognizing it. The real danger I've noticed is the temptation to go full gnostic when trying to find God outside tradition
To defend the young earth creationists a little bit. I don't think it's TOO crazy to say that God himself was the light that sustained creation before the stars were created. You get the same language in Revelation, so it's not really THAT far fetched to take it that way. I'm not a young earth creationist either.
Is it crazy at all? It is all that makes sense. If God did not create Adam and Eve as written, Jesus is not the second Adam and therefore he did not take on our human nature for the purpose of elevating men to be gods by grace. How then will the general resurrection occur? Then the whole worldview deconstructs
That makes sense materially, but it doesn’t make sense as something God would do, because it’s out of order. It’s basically portraying God as a magician who arbitrarily overrules the “laws of nature” whenever he feels like it, because he can. This will naturally lead people to wonder why he doesn’t feel like doing that when a child is dying of cancer.
@@huntz0r That question about the child dying of cancer exists whether or not you take this view. Unless you don't believe God has done and/or still does miracles. The answer there is not that God "overrules" the laws of nature, but that he introduces a new event that acts as a part of nature, not in conflict with it. It's not that it's "breaking the laws", but it is momentarily re-writing them. So, we should not expect anything different from the basic function of the laws of nature, that's how things work. If God decides to momentarily rewrite a law, that's up to him. Also, God has his reasons for doing miracles for some, but not for others. I'm not omniscient, I don't claim to know those reasons. Most importantly though, this is talking about the creation narrative. We don't even have to posit these laws necessarily existed while God was creating the universe. They could have been set when the creation was completed and God found it very good.
@@wake1028 there are ways you can imagine the story as written to be functionally true without being literally-materially true. However those ways are all more complicated and less coherent than the story as written, which makes them less useful. The problem is if we call the best scientific knowledge available incorrect because we can’t accept it, and it turns out to be correct, we’ve denied reality, which in a way is denying God. We must not, if at all possible, not be found putting our faith in a conception of God that doesn’t align with him as he truly is. The consequences of this are serious - it is the reason many atheists became atheists in the first place, and now cannot find their way back to God without great difficulty.
@@huntz0r I don't disagree on a practical level. I'm not a young earth creationist. Also though, I think they would just say it's better, and safer to follow scripture, than to follow what fallible man has concluded. Especially when speaking about something that happened so long ago. We don't have a record from man about what happened, but we do have a record from God. That's why I personally don't make these issues a soteriological issue. You can believe which ever way you think God intended, I'll still call you family. To your point though, I'm an old earth creationist, and I don't believe in "macro" evolution. I don't believe that for lack of scientific evidence though, not because of what scripture says. I don't think you can get "macro" evolution with the problems that arise from positing it. The problems are too great for it to overcome, and there just isn't enough positive evidence to balance out the problems such that it leans in the likely direction, for me. We shouldn't be making these things topics that either let you in, or keep you out of the faith. If you want to be a theistic evolutionist, great! Believe that. If you want to be a young earth creationist, great! Believe that. It makes no real difference to me as far as everlasting life is concerned. Not saying it isn't important to talk about though.
Uhhhh.. no one "has control over the universe." Lol. No one can prove why there's something rather than nothing. Theists can't prove it. Neither can naturalists.
I don't know what types of people you're meeting, but nearly all the scientists and atheists (which aren't necessarily materialists) I know are more than comfortable with uncertainty and mystery. It's those who claim to know of a supernatural dimension or abstract non-entity that are the less humble and therefore shoulder the burden of proof.
A typical view I’ve seen from materialists is more like “we don’t know everything *yet*” ie, given enough time and computing power there is no reason we couldn’t eventually figure out everything about the universe. It’s only a practical issue that we may not have enough time. Religions might claim to know a lot of things that can’t be empirically proven, but even fundamentalists will acknowledge that God cannot ever be fully known. To the extent a religious person is claiming knowledge they don’t have or denying God’s unknowability, their religion is probably not doing them much good. The point isn’t to know things.
3;38 this guy has no problem lying... And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. gen 1-3 but not till gen 1-11 is the grass made. why this guy is the way he is, well ask who he think is God. he will probably tell you the Supreme Being is the God of this world.
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. (Gen. 1:11-13) And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. (Gen. 1:14-19) Did he create the Sun and the moon twice? Or perhaps the light and darkness in Gen 1:3 is not the Sun and the moon.
@@densaakaldte1 fair i was beefing too hard. i may have a bit of bias. I'm not a fan of how much weight he puts on human reason and logic. its hard to be neutral at times when that very logic seems to run awry. but i do think i overstepped. thanks
Well, in science it’s probably 90% stuff that is very certain based on observations and empirical data and 10% made up stuff that can not be falsified in any way whatsoever. In religion it’s probably the opposite, 10% that is very certain based on observations and empirical data and 90% made up stuff that can not be verified in any way whatsoever. And of course you won’t find the kind of fanaticism very often among scientists that is normal in religion.
You don't clearly understand the essence of science nor its history. Read Thomas Kuhn's essay on Structure of Scientific Revolutions and quit this Reddit talk.
@@glassman7961 Ok… but how does this change the fact that science is primarily about trying to falsify hypotheses with observable and verifiable evidence while religion is about making up unfalsifiable assertions?😂
@ramigilneas9274 I can't say much about other religions or even other Christian denominations, but everything foundational in catholism has been backed up by philosophical argumentation. God has been argued for, God's characteristics has been argued for, the nature of reality and of morality has been argued for, the human soul has been argued for etc. Once catholism has been proven, by extension the bible and the catholic interpretation of it has been proven, meaning everything has been proven. You can disagree with every single argument, but saying that everything is assertions is verifiably wrong and shows ignorance.
@@llamahguy7229 You can argue for anything and everything. But if you had verifiable evidence then you wouldn’t need highly subjective arguments that are nothing more than the unfalsifiable opinions of some philosophers. Ironically there is no official Catholic position about many things.
@@ramigilneas9274 ?????? Science isn't the only way to prove things, logic works too. What are you trying to do right now... your using words to communicate logic to try and disprove my opinion on catholism. For example, if I show that "A" exists, and that if "A" exists "B" must exist, then I have proven definitively that "B" exists. That's literally basic logic 101. And that's what the arguments I have in mind do. Do you want me to go through one?
1 Corinthians 2
1
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. [1]
2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
3
I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling.
4
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power,
5
so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
Thanks much for this video.
My issue with the many atheists I have interacted with, is they are epistemological fundies but reject ontology and all other branches of philosophy.
Hello friend
@@Landbeorht May we all come to know each other better.
"many" implies there are some atheists that don't reject ontology. Which ones are those?
@@gabrielduran291 Ontology is preparatory to metaphysics. The majority of modern philosophers accept some logic and math ... and most atheists you could name are modern, not ancients. Basically Pythagoras plus Aristotle (empiricism). Aristotle himself worked in many areas, including ontology and metaphysics. Daniel Dennett would not count as an atheist as I mean it, because he has a metaphysics, that isn't reductionist.
@@williambranch4283 Ayn Rand is another Atheist from the last century that respects all branches of philosophy except theology.
"i choose to have a relation with..." you cannot choose what is real.
Deep.
Niche never ment God is literally dead...
He just said the church that representints the God is dead...
As in some new horizons!!!
Maybe these horizons can give us something to help us, or at least strengthen our resolve and faith with the litteral God!!!
I had to give you a thumbs up for this. That’s how I read it too. That quote is often misunderstood, IMO. Great catch.
When I first heard the quote as a teen I thought he claimed God was dead literally, but in context it meant God was no longer needed to understand the world. We had Reason and Science to explain everything. God got thrown under the bus. But the original take, if you isolate the quote, was admitting God himself existed but had somehow succumbed to death. That's nonsensical about an almighty Deity.
The issue with agnosticism about things, generally, is that is lends itself to postmodernism.
That's correct but thank God literally He created an objective reality that'll punish people for not recognizing it.
The real danger I've noticed is the temptation to go full gnostic when trying to find God outside tradition
having kids makes agnosticism pretty useless
To defend the young earth creationists a little bit. I don't think it's TOO crazy to say that God himself was the light that sustained creation before the stars were created. You get the same language in Revelation, so it's not really THAT far fetched to take it that way. I'm not a young earth creationist either.
Is it crazy at all? It is all that makes sense.
If God did not create Adam and Eve as written, Jesus is not the second Adam and therefore he did not take on our human nature for the purpose of elevating men to be gods by grace. How then will the general resurrection occur? Then the whole worldview deconstructs
That makes sense materially, but it doesn’t make sense as something God would do, because it’s out of order.
It’s basically portraying God as a magician who arbitrarily overrules the “laws of nature” whenever he feels like it, because he can. This will naturally lead people to wonder why he doesn’t feel like doing that when a child is dying of cancer.
@@huntz0r That question about the child dying of cancer exists whether or not you take this view. Unless you don't believe God has done and/or still does miracles.
The answer there is not that God "overrules" the laws of nature, but that he introduces a new event that acts as a part of nature, not in conflict with it. It's not that it's "breaking the laws", but it is momentarily re-writing them. So, we should not expect anything different from the basic function of the laws of nature, that's how things work. If God decides to momentarily rewrite a law, that's up to him. Also, God has his reasons for doing miracles for some, but not for others. I'm not omniscient, I don't claim to know those reasons.
Most importantly though, this is talking about the creation narrative. We don't even have to posit these laws necessarily existed while God was creating the universe. They could have been set when the creation was completed and God found it very good.
@@wake1028 there are ways you can imagine the story as written to be functionally true without being literally-materially true. However those ways are all more complicated and less coherent than the story as written, which makes them less useful.
The problem is if we call the best scientific knowledge available incorrect because we can’t accept it, and it turns out to be correct, we’ve denied reality, which in a way is denying God. We must not, if at all possible, not be found putting our faith in a conception of God that doesn’t align with him as he truly is. The consequences of this are serious - it is the reason many atheists became atheists in the first place, and now cannot find their way back to God without great difficulty.
@@huntz0r I don't disagree on a practical level. I'm not a young earth creationist. Also though, I think they would just say it's better, and safer to follow scripture, than to follow what fallible man has concluded. Especially when speaking about something that happened so long ago. We don't have a record from man about what happened, but we do have a record from God. That's why I personally don't make these issues a soteriological issue. You can believe which ever way you think God intended, I'll still call you family.
To your point though, I'm an old earth creationist, and I don't believe in "macro" evolution. I don't believe that for lack of scientific evidence though, not because of what scripture says. I don't think you can get "macro" evolution with the problems that arise from positing it. The problems are too great for it to overcome, and there just isn't enough positive evidence to balance out the problems such that it leans in the likely direction, for me.
We shouldn't be making these things topics that either let you in, or keep you out of the faith. If you want to be a theistic evolutionist, great! Believe that. If you want to be a young earth creationist, great! Believe that. It makes no real difference to me as far as everlasting life is concerned. Not saying it isn't important to talk about though.
Each religion has its own particular type of atheist. New atheists are evangelicals.
Atheism is for teenagers.
religion is for babies that cant deal with not having control over the universe so they make up a magical being that does.
Uhhhh.. no one "has control over the universe." Lol. No one can prove why there's something rather than nothing. Theists can't prove it. Neither can naturalists.
This is just a reheated god of the gaps argument - there are things I don’t know, therefore god exists.
As if there are only 2 choices
Same level... sure... in some way... but not the same quailty nor value
I don't know what types of people you're meeting, but nearly all the scientists and atheists (which aren't necessarily materialists) I know are more than comfortable with uncertainty and mystery. It's those who claim to know of a supernatural dimension or abstract non-entity that are the less humble and therefore shoulder the burden of proof.
A typical view I’ve seen from materialists is more like “we don’t know everything *yet*” ie, given enough time and computing power there is no reason we couldn’t eventually figure out everything about the universe. It’s only a practical issue that we may not have enough time.
Religions might claim to know a lot of things that can’t be empirically proven, but even fundamentalists will acknowledge that God cannot ever be fully known. To the extent a religious person is claiming knowledge they don’t have or denying God’s unknowability, their religion is probably not doing them much good. The point isn’t to know things.
3;38 this guy has no problem lying... And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. gen 1-3
but not till gen 1-11 is the grass made. why this guy is the way he is, well ask who he think is God. he will probably tell you the Supreme Being is the God of this world.
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. (Gen. 1:11-13)
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. (Gen. 1:14-19)
Did he create the Sun and the moon twice? Or perhaps the light and darkness in Gen 1:3 is not the Sun and the moon.
@@densaakaldte1 fair i was beefing too hard. i may have a bit of bias. I'm not a fan of how much weight he puts on human reason and logic. its hard to be neutral at times when that very logic seems to run awry. but i do think i overstepped. thanks
And orthodox/catholicism is the exact same level of heretical thinking.
You realize Orthodoxy is completely different from Catholicism, right?
@@jesh879 really? “Completely” different? Is that your biases talking or the facts of the matter?
@@TEMPESTsonofThunder. Orthodoxy predates Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Don’t throw heretic around when you most likely have heretical views.
@@FaithfulComforter let me get this right. In your mind, a date is what decides whether or not something’s heretical?
@@TEMPESTsonofThunder divine simplicity vs essence energies distinction changes theology completely
Well, in science it’s probably 90% stuff that is very certain based on observations and empirical data and 10% made up stuff that can not be falsified in any way whatsoever.
In religion it’s probably the opposite, 10% that is very certain based on observations and empirical data and 90% made up stuff that can not be verified in any way whatsoever.
And of course you won’t find the kind of fanaticism very often among scientists that is normal in religion.
You don't clearly understand the essence of science nor its history. Read Thomas Kuhn's essay on Structure of Scientific Revolutions and quit this Reddit talk.
@@glassman7961
Ok… but how does this change the fact that science is primarily about trying to falsify hypotheses with observable and verifiable evidence while religion is about making up unfalsifiable assertions?😂
@ramigilneas9274 I can't say much about other religions or even other Christian denominations, but everything foundational in catholism has been backed up by philosophical argumentation. God has been argued for, God's characteristics has been argued for, the nature of reality and of morality has been argued for, the human soul has been argued for etc.
Once catholism has been proven, by extension the bible and the catholic interpretation of it has been proven, meaning everything has been proven. You can disagree with every single argument, but saying that everything is assertions is verifiably wrong and shows ignorance.
@@llamahguy7229
You can argue for anything and everything.
But if you had verifiable evidence then you wouldn’t need highly subjective arguments that are nothing more than the unfalsifiable opinions of some philosophers.
Ironically there is no official Catholic position about many things.
@@ramigilneas9274 ?????? Science isn't the only way to prove things, logic works too. What are you trying to do right now... your using words to communicate logic to try and disprove my opinion on catholism.
For example, if I show that "A" exists, and that if "A" exists "B" must exist, then I have proven definitively that "B" exists. That's literally basic logic 101. And that's what the arguments I have in mind do. Do you want me to go through one?